-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. Income Tax Appeal No. 180 of 2002 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant vs. The Municipal Coop.Bank Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.Vimal Gupta for appellant. Mr.M.Thakkar i/b Mint & Confrers for respondent. CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. 4th September,2008 4th September,2008 4th September,2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal is admitted on 12th August, 2004 on the following substantial question of law. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in upholding the finding of the CIT(A) and confirming that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80P even when income results from acting as agent for Govt. or local authorities and such income is beyond the scope of banking business because -2- activity of making collection on behalf of another person for a commission is beyond normal incidence of banking business?" 3. In the light of the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ahmednagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others reported in 264 ITR 38 the above question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.)