Held, that since the assessment order had been passed prior to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Co-Operative Bank L td. v. CIT (2021) 431 ITR 1 (SC)  wherein many legal principles had been settled, the issue required to be examined afresh in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and the issue restored to the Assessing Officer to examine the claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) following the decision of the Supreme Court (Supra).

Held that the issue regarding disallowance of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act was raised for the first time before the Tribunal. Besides, the assessee had raised a contention that if interest income was assessed under the head “Income from other sources”, the corresponding expenditure incurred in earning interest income should be allowed as deduction. Since this was also a new contention, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for examining it in the light of decision of the High Court in the case of Totgars Co-Operative Sales Society Ltd. v. ITO  (2015) 58 taxman.com 35 (Karn)(HC). Held, that the assessee had explained why it had collected the demonetised notes after the prescribed date of demonetisation and had stopped collection after the receipt of notification dated November 14, 2016 issued by the Reserve Bank of India, which had clearly clarified that the assessee-society should not collect the demonetised notes. Therefore, the deposit of demonetised notes collected by the assessee from its members would not be hit by the provisions of section 68 of the Act. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and the Assessing Officer was to delete the disallowance.  (AY.2017-18)