JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. By way of these Appeals, the common Appellant - assessee has challenged the orders 06.11.2008 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot as per the following details:- Tax Appeal No. ITA No. Assessment Year 343/2009 491/Rjt/2007 2004-2005 1552/2009 371/Rjt/2009 2006-2007 1606/2009 165/Rjt/2008 2005-2006 2. While admitting Tax Appeals No. 343/2009 with 1606/2009, the following common substantial question of law was framed by the Court for consideration:- "Whether on the facts the Tribunal is right in law in interpreting Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while confirming the disallowance towards interest on Income Tax Refund?" 3. While admitting Tax Appeal No. 1552/2009, the following substantial question of law was framed by the Court for consideration:- "Whether on the facts the Tribunal is right in law in interpreting Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while confirming the disallowance of Rs. 64,69,776/- towards interest on Income Tax Refund?" 4. The facts in common that give rise to the above Appeals are as under:- The assessee is a Co-operative Society engaged in the business of banking and is a duly recognized Scheduled Bank and is duly assessed to tax by the Income Tax Department at Rajkot. For the assessment years under consideration, the assessee claimed exemption under exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as claimed by the appellant in the preceding assessment years on the basis of the same facts and circumstances of the case. The Assessing Officer processed the Return of Income and the scrutiny order was framed after making various additions. One of the additions was made was in respect of interest on Income-tax refund and the said addition was made by the Assessing Officer due to denial of deduction under Section 80P of the Act as claimed by the appellant. The Assessing Officer was of the view that payment of tax is not associated with banking business and hence, not eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. Hence, the assessee preferred a first Appeal before the CIT (Appeals) wherein it was concluded that interest on Income-tax refund is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P of the Act. The assessee therefore, preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which concluded that the interest on Income-tax refund cannot be considered as part of the banking activities. Hence, the assessee preferred a first Appeal before the CIT (Appeals) wherein it was concluded that interest on Income-tax refund is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P of the Act. The assessee therefore, preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which concluded that the interest on Income-tax refund cannot be considered as part of the banking activities. Being aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal, the above Appeals are filed. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. R.K. Patel has submitted that the Tribunal has followed its earlier decision which was delivered in ITA No. 714/Rjt/2005 for the Assessment Year: 1994-1995 but since the matters involved the aspect of low tax effect, the same was not challenged and the above Appeals are preferred. Learned Counsel for the appellant has taken us to the order of the Tribunal and his contentions which were recorded by the Tribunal. It is contended that the assessee claimed exemption under exemption under Section 80P2(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as claimed by the appellant in the preceding assessment years on the basis of the same facts and circumstances of the case. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has seriously erred in not appreciating the fact that the provisions of Section 80P of the Act refers to the phrase "attributable to" which has a wider import than the words "derived from" banking business for the purpose of granting of deduction to the assessee. 5.1. Learned Counsel for the appellant has taken this Court to the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Baroda Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd. reported in [2005] 149 Taxman 509 (Guj.) and more particularly to paragraphs 30, 31, 32 and the summary in paragraph 52 which are reproduced hereunder:-- "30. Therefore, while examining a case wherein a Co-operative Society claims deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act one has to bear in mind the object with which the provision is introduced viz., to encourage and promote growth of the Co-operative Sector in the economic life of the country and in pursuance of the declared policy of the Government. Therefore, while examining a case wherein a Co-operative Society claims deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act one has to bear in mind the object with which the provision is introduced viz., to encourage and promote growth of the Co-operative Sector in the economic life of the country and in pursuance of the declared policy of the Government. The Apex Court has also stated that if a question arises as to whether any particular category of income of a Co-operative Society is exempt from tax what has to be seen is whether the income falls within any of the several heads because each would be a separate and distinct head and merely because conditions for deduction under one head are not satisfied that does not necessarily mean that an assessee is not entitled to deduction under another head wherein conditions stand fulfilled. Hence the contention on behalf of the revenue that the first activity namely business of banking has to take colour from the second activity namely providing credit facilities to members does not merit acceptance. 31. Section 80P requires that profits and gains of business must be attributable to any one or more of the specified activities. The phrase 'attributable to' has come up for consideration in various cases before the Apex Court. In the case of Vellore Electric Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the assessee before the Apex Court was an Electricity Supply Undertaking. A dispute arose as to whether investment, of sums appropriated to the contingencies reserve, in securities authorised under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 and income derived by way of interest therefrom was attributable to profits and gains of the business of the assessee for the purposes of Section 80I of the Act. The Apex Court observed as under: "In Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd., this Court has said (page 93): 'In our view, since the expression of wider import, namely 'attributable to', has been used, the Legislature intended to cover receipts from sources other than the actual conduct of the business of generation and distribution of electricity'. This would mean that it is not necessary that the income should have been earned from the actual conduct of the business of generation and distribution of electricity. This would mean that it is not necessary that the income should have been earned from the actual conduct of the business of generation and distribution of electricity. What is required is that the activity from which the income is earned must have a direct and proximate connection with the priority industry of generation and distribution of electricity. 32. In light of the above decision when the investments are made in securities, which are permissible mode of investments, either under the B.R. Act or GCS Act read with Indian Trusts Act income arising therefrom would be attributable to the business of banking and the assessee would be eligible for deduction in terms of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act." "52. In light of the above decision when the investments are made in securities, which are permissible mode of investments, either under the B.R. Act or GCS Act read with Indian Trusts Act income arising therefrom would be attributable to the business of banking and the assessee would be eligible for deduction in terms of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act." "52. To summarise: (i) The finding of this Court rendered in case of Gujarat State Co-operative Bank Limited (supra) does not survive when in relation to the second question it is stated by the Apex Court that the matter stands restored to Commissioner (Appeals) for being decided afresh; (ii) It is well settled that a decision not expressed, not accompanied by reasons cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as contemplated by Article 141 of the Constitution; (iii) It is for the High Court to find out what is distinction between the decision on the case before the Supreme Court and what is the ratio decidendi so as to decide the issue on merits according to its own interpretation of the judgment of the Apex Court; (iv) As per the Scheme of the Income Tax Act net income relatable to a particular head or item has to go in as a component of the gross total income before any deduction under Chapter VIA is allowed; (v) In case of an assessee, carrying on business of banking income under Section 28 is computed in accordance with provisions of Section 29 of the Income Tax Act and the net figure is taken as a component of the total income or gross total income for the purpose of deduction under Chapter VIA; (vi) In case of an assessee, like the present assessee, all interest income, actually received or accrued, has to be computed in the manner provided in the Act so as to form the total income which is subjected to charge under Section 4 of the Act; (vii) The order of the Apex Court cannot and should not be construed in a manner so as to be inconsistent with the provisions of the statute as the Apex Court could not have contemplated passing an order contrary to the provisions of the Act; (viii) Thus the direction by the Supreme Court can only mean ascertainment of utilization of net income of earlier years, which forms part of the funds which are invested, and given the nomenclature of voluntary reserves; (ix) Under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act the two activities, viz., business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members, are distinct and separate activities; the former connotes a larger activity than the activity of providing credit facilities to its members; (x) The provision of Section 80P has been introduced on the statute book to encourage and promote growth of the co-operative sector in the economic life of the country; (xi) When the investments are made in securities, in permissible mode of investments, under the B.R. Act or GCS Act read with Indian Trusts Act income arising therefrom would be attributable to the business of banking, and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act; (xii) Definition of 'working capital' under Section 2(24) of the GCS Act cannot be restricted to mean money raised by borrowing; (xiii) The Scheme under the GCS Act in case of society carrying on business of banking is that, it would be permissible to make investments or deposits in any of the specified modes as provided in Section 71 of the GCS Act including any of the modes specified in Section 20 of the Indian Trusts Act without there being any upper limit as to the amount that can be invested, once the statutory requirement of reserve fund stipulated in Section 67(2) of the GCS Act is satisfied; (xiv) Section 6(1) of the B.R. Act is an enabling provision and to read the same as restricting the scope of business of banking would be an incorrect reading which does not flow from the plain language employed by the provision; (xv) Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act requires a Co-operative Society, and not a Co-operative Bank defined under the GCS Act, to be engaged in carrying on business of banking; hence it is not possible to restrict the scope of the business to the definition of 'Banking' under Section 5(b) of the B.R. Act; (xvi) There is a live link, a proximate nexus between Clauses (a) to (o) of Section 6(1) and the business of 'Banking' under Section 5(b) of the B.R. Act; (xvii) The definition of 'Banking' under Section 5(b) of the B.R. Act does not stipulate that investment should be should be only to the extent provided either by the GCS Act or B.R. Act; (xviii) The meaning of the term 'investment' in Section 5(b) of the B.R. Act has to be read so as to denote placing of property in business so that it will be safe and yield profit; (xix) Considering the provisions of Section 6(2) and Section 8 of the B.R. Act to treat the investments made by an assessee as being investments not in the course of business is not warranted by the provisions of the B.R. Act; (xx) Whatever be the nomenclature of a reserve, the funds of an assessee in totality are conglomerate of the total amount of deposits/investments, profits and other realisations; (xxi) The requirement of investment being in easily realisable securities or money being readily available for meeting the demand made by the depositor is taken as touch stone of the business of banking to ensure that the depositor gets good returns accompanied by safety and liquidity; (xxii) All investments, surplus or not, are essential and conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of banking when considered from the view point of a depositor." 5.2. In that view of the matter, it is contended that all the authorities have committed an error in not granting exemption/reduction. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also taken us to the arguments which were canvassed before the lower authorities and contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, exemption is required and deduction is to be granted. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that in view of the concurrent findings and in view of Section 6(1)(a) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, this is a case which would fall under the said Act. It is contended that it is liability of the assessee under the Act, as contemplated in Paragraph 32 of the above decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Baroda Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra). In view of the concurrent findings, it is submitted that the issue is to be answered in favour of the Department. 7. We have heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the records of the case. At this stage it is refer to the following Section: "80P. Deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies. (1) Where, in the case of an assessee being a co-operative society, the gross total income includes any income referred to in sub-section (2), there shall be deducted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, the sums specified in sub-section (2), in computing the total income of the assessee. (2) The sums referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely:- (a) in the case of a co-operative society engaged in- (i) carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members, or (ii) a cottage industry, or" Coming to the point of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, it is true that all the activities which are carried out by a the cooperative Bank will fall under the exemption, but in our view, this is neither an outstanding amount nor a government security. This tax liability under the Income Tax Act is covered by Paragraph 32 of the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Baroda Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra) and will not fall under Paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Banking Regulation Act. 8. This tax liability under the Income Tax Act is covered by Paragraph 32 of the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Baroda Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra) and will not fall under Paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Banking Regulation Act. 8. Considering the ratio laid down in the above decisions and in the facts of the present case, we confirm the order passed by all the authorities and answer the issue raised in these Appeals in favour of the Department and against the assessee. All the above Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.