|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 920 Records
-
2020 (4) TMI 740
Revision u/s 263 - depreciation on being Foreign Exchange Fluctuation u/s 43A - HELD THAT:- As inferred from the revisional order u/s.263 is different from the reasons set-out in the show-cause notice and therefore, we are of the considered view that when a ground of revision is not mentioned in the show-cause, then it cannot be made the basis of the order for the reason that assessee would have had no opportunity to meet the point. Considering the judgements relied upon by the ld.AR, we find that the ground mentioned by the CIT, while passing the order u/s.263 with regard to claiming of depreciation on account of Foreign Exchange Fluctuation was not mentioned in the show-cause notice u/s.263(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Therefore, the assessee could not get opportunity to explain the point recorded at the time of passing final order.
We hold that the order of ld.CIT u/s.263 qua directing the ld.AO to pass a fresh order denovo on account of claim of depreciation on account of Foreign Exchange Fluctuation is bad in law and is thus not sustainable in Law. Therefore, that portion of the order is quashed, and this ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
Disallowance on account of repairs to Plant & Machinery - HELD THAT:- It is not a proviso to proviso in other words. Learned Departmental Representative further fails to dispute that the question whether or not a port terminals Jetty / Trestle is to be treated as plant and machinery is no more res integra since this tribunal’s co-ordinate bench decision in Kandla Port Trust case [2006 (4) TMI 243 - ITAT RAJKOT] has held such assets to be plant and machinery entitled for 25% rate of depreciation. Hon'ble jurisdictional high court has upheld the said view in Revenue’s tax [2016 (8) TMI 111 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. We therefore find no reason to accept in Revenue’s arguments seeking to treat assessee’s Jetty & Trestle as building block of assets instead of plant and machinery in all cases on merits as well.
Depreciation on electric installation - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue is squarely covered in M/s.Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal Co.Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1) [2019 (12) TMI 1294 - ITAT SURAT] opinion that assessee is eligible for depreciation @ 15% instead of 10% allowed by the ld.AO.
-
2020 (4) TMI 739
Exemption u/s 11 - Registration u/s.80G(5) rejected as assessee failed to file documentary evidences to enable him to bring satisfaction about the genuineness of the Trust activities - HELD THAT:- After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view the matter requires reconsideration at the level of Learned CIT(Exemption). Since the assessee had already submitted all the required documents by email before the ld.CIT(Exemption) which do not find mention in the order, therefore it can be inferred that those were not considered. The principle of audi alteram partem is the basic concept of natural justice. The expression “audi alteram partem” implies that a person must be given an opportunity to defend himself. This principle is sine qua non of every civilized society.
The right to notice, right to present case and evidence, right to rebut adverse evidence, right to cross examination, right to legal representation, disclosure of evidence to party, report of enquiry to be shown to the other party and reasoned decisions or speaking orders. We took this guidance for right of hearing, from the ratio as is laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that rule of fair hearing is necessary before passing any order.
We find that it is pre-decision hearing standard of norm of rule of audi alteram partem. We, are therefore, of the view the matter requires reconsideration at the level of Learned CIT(Exemption).
Thus, while setting aside the order of ld.CIT(E), we restore it back to Ld.CIT(Exemption) and direct that all the documents filed by assessee through E-mail be considered and the assessee be given one more opportunity of being heard and to file all the documents before the ld.CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad as called-for - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2020 (4) TMI 738
Estimation of income - Addition on statement during the course of survey - CIT- A deleted the addition - As per revenue basis for making addition was not only the statement recorded by the Revenue during the course of survey but also the profit and loss account extracted from the computer system of the assessee on the basis of which the assessee has disclosed his income - HELD THAT:- CIT(Appeals) has failed to appreciate the statement of the assessee and further failed to examine the profit and loss account retrieved at the time of survey which was admitted to be correct by the assessee. On the basis of this extracted profit and loss account from the computer for the relevant assessment year upto 19.01.2010, the assessee has declared his income of ₹ 8.63 Crores . The assessee on his own in reply to Question No.25 had over and above the already agreed income of ₹ 8.63 Crores have also admitted that he would have an income of ₹ 9.5 Crores (inclusive of ₹ 8.63 Crores) upto 31.03.2010. Besides that the assessee had also declared the additional income of ₹ 2.60 Crores and ₹ 2.20 Crores for the assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively.
CIT(Appeals) had wrongly read the statement of the assessee and have further failed to appreciate the accounts as on 19.01.2010 were duly admitted and acknowledged by the assessee as correct. Hence, the right course would be for the Ld. CIT(Appeals) to freeze the profit and loss account of the assessee upto 19.01.2010 and thereafter, the profit and loss account for the remaining period was required to be re-casted and based on that profit of the assessee should have been calculated. Needful was not done by the Assessing Officer or by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) - remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) - Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes
-
2020 (4) TMI 737
Penalty u/s. 271D and u/s. 271E - default u/s 269SS and 269T - acceptance and repayment of loans or deposits in cash - Co-operative Societies to be treated as credit societies as alternative to Bank - bonafide belief - HELD THAT:- Assessee has accepted and repaid deposit of loans above ₹ 20,000/- otherwise then by the account payee cheque or account payee draft on a bonafide belief that provisions of section 269SS and 269T are not applicable in its case.
AO had also accepted that deposits made by the assessee are genuine and the breach of provisions of section 269SS and 269T was occurred due to bonafide belief. Even no addition was made on account of these impugned deposits in the Return of Income and thus the veracity of the creditors was not doubted by the Revenue. In case, if the veracity was doubted, then the additions would have been made u/s.68 of the Act. It is an undisputed facts that these credit societies function in villages/taluks etc., for farmers or related persons, as an alternative to banks and if the deposits were taken/repaid only in cheques, then it may loose all relevance. Even the Chartered Accountant who audited the books of accounts was not showing these as being in contravention of the Act in the relevant columns of Audit Report.
Under bonafide belief assessee could accept and repaid loan or deposits in cash as is done by the Co-operative Banks, the assessee had accepted and repaid loans or deposits in cash. Provision of section 269SS are not applicable in the present case. - Decided against revenue.
-
2020 (4) TMI 736
Allowable revenue expenditure u/s 37 - training charges incurred on non-executive director - HELD THAT:- Shri Jashan Bhumkar completed the higher education with the financial assistance of the assessee company and assessee company had incurred the education expenditure for the last year of graduation and Shri Jashan Bhumkar was working in the company as non-executive director at the time of availing the above benefit. The company has decided to approve the above expenditure by passing a resolution in this regard and entered into an education sponsorship agreement. As per the above agreement Shri Jashan Bhumkar has to work with the assessee company for a period of 3 years in return for the above said sponsorship.
Assessee has sponsored the education of son of the M.D. What is relevance, whether the person who was sponsored, is relevant for the existing business and whether the business benefitted. If it is yes, then it is valid business expenditure and respectfully following the aforesaid decisions which is applicable mutatis mutandis in the present case, we are inclined to accept the submission of Ld. AR. Accordingly, we allow the grounds raised by the assessee.
-
2020 (4) TMI 735
Exemption u/s 11 - corpus fund received - AO noted that all the persons denied having given any donation to the assessee thus addition proposed u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- Assessing Officer accepted the genuineness of the transactions in respect of seven persons out of the said 17 persons from whom loan was received - evidences produced in respect of 6 persons as detailed at S.Nos. 3,5,7, 8, 12 & 14 . The Ld. DR could not point out any discrepancy in the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue.
The observations made by the Tribunal in the circumstances of the case of the assessee in respect of some of the unexplained corpus donations can not be applied in respect of unexplained loans. In a loan case, the assessee has to establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. Application of income does not change the character of receipt. If the receipt is not from the property held for charitable purposes, the same will not be eligible for exemption u/s 11, irrespective of its application for charitable purposes or otherwise. In view of this, the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of alleged loans received from remaining four persons at Serial No. 2, 6, 10 and 16 as given on the chart forming part of the order of CIT(A) amounting to ₹ 85,88,616/- is confirmed. Revenue's Ground is partly allowed.
-
2020 (4) TMI 734
Addition u/s 68 - Bogus LTCG - HELD THAT:- The contract note of showing sale of shares of M/s. NGFL and the bank statement reflecting the receipt on sale of shares of M/s. NGFL is found placed and the Demat statement reflecting sale on 17th September, 2013 has been furnished at the time of hearing which copy has been given to the ld. DR also. Thus it is noted that the assessee has purchased on-line scrips of M/s. NGFL and sold it also on-line after paying STT.
The assessee has discharged its onus to prove the transactions to be bonafide transactions from which it claimed the LTCG and therefore this amount is an exempt income u/s 10(38) - We note that the AO has not found any fault with the aforesaid documents though he accepted that he has gone through the same. In such a scenario we are bound to follow the decision of this Tribunal in another case of an assessee wherein similar claim of LTCG on sale of M/s. NGFL was considered and granted.
Respectfully following the Tribunal’s order in Madhu Killa [2018 (11) TMI 261 - ITAT KOLKATA] and taking into consideration the documents filed by the assessee to prove the transaction which has taken place through on-line (both purchase and sale) after giving STT need to be allowed and therefore allow the claim and direct deletion of addition - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (4) TMI 733
Liquidation of Corporate Debtor - liquidation sought on the ground the Resolution Applicant failed to perform the Resolution Plan as stated in the Resolution Plan and for appointment of Mr. Chandramouli Ramasubramaniam as Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT:- Looking at the attendance sheet file, it appears that these Respondents (Promoter-Directors) appeared on and off but have not come out with any concrete proposal or any promise to comply with the Resolution Plan approved by this Bench. For having already two months gone by after filing this application, we are constrained to pass orders to liquidate the Corporate Debtor under section 33(3) of the Code by directing the erstwhile Resolution Professional (RP) namely, Mr. Chandramouli Ramasubramaniam looking at the written consent given by him, to act as the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor for the purpose of liquidation of this Corporate Debtor.
The Liquidation of Corporate Debtor is ordered in the manner as laid down in the Chapter by issuing a public notice stating that the Corporate Debtor is in liquidation with a direction to the liquidator to send this order to ROC with which this company has been registered.
The Registry is hereby directed to immediately communicate this order to the Liquidator, the Corporate Debtor, the IBBI and Concerned ROC by way of e-mail - application allowed.
-
2020 (4) TMI 732
Money Laundering - investment of proceeds of crime - Acquiring of Liquor shops - allegation that the investment represent the process of integration of the proceeds of the crime with the main stream economy - Section 5(1) of the PMLA - It has been submitted on behalf of appellant that there is no material whatsoever on the basis of which the competent authority/adjudicating authority could have reasons to believe that movable and immovable properties purchased by the appellants were derived or obtained from proceeds of crime generated from criminal activity relating to schedule offence - right to appeal.
HELD THAT:- The predicate offence and the offence of money-laundering are two distinct and separate set of offences. The offence of money laundering is independent of schedule offences. As per section 24 of PML Act, the burden of proof that proceeds are legitimate is on the accused - It is the date of laundering which would be relevant and not the date of schedule offence. The laundering as used in Section 3 comprises of involvement in any process or activity by which the illicit money is being projected as untainted.
Date of occurrence of scheduled offence is not relevant, rather, date on which laundering of money is committed is the relevant date. Even if money was acquired prior to amending Act but accused has committed offence under Section 3 of act subsequent to coming of the Act he can be proceeded for offence of money laundering i.e. his involvement in projecting illicit money to be untainted.
Attachment proceeding and criminal proceedings are two parallel and independent proceedings and are not dependent upon each other. Properties which are found liable for attachment after final adjudication can be confiscated after conviction of accused under Section ¾ of PML Act - Against the order passed by the appellate tribunal the aggrieved party under Section-42 of the PMLA has further right of appeal before the High Court, as such the order passed by the appellate tribunal by which instead of deciding the appeal and pass a final order, keeping the appeal pending till disposal of criminal prosecution lodged for offences punishable under Sections 3/4 of the PMLA pending before the PMLA Court, Patna is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.
The appellate tribunal is directed to decide the pending appeal of appellant within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order passed by this Court - Appeal disposed off.
-
2020 (4) TMI 731
Nature of activity - deemed sale or service? - service of providing leasing of digital cinema equipments to theatres - supply of tangible goods’ service or not - HELD THAT:- Identical issue decided in the case of M/S. QUBE CINEMA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS GST & CCE, CHENNAI NORTH [2018 (5) TMI 887 - CESTAT CHENNAI] where it was held that activity does not fall within the definition of service under the Finance Act, 1994 as amended in 2012.
The demand cannot sustain - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (4) TMI 730
Public Auction by Banks - recovery of outstanding dues - Right of e-auction purchaser - To get original documents - no existence of valid mortgage in respect of the secured assets - approbation and reprobation of commitment on the part of guarantor - thrust of the argument of the appellant is that it having purchased the property in a public auction conducted by the Bank and upon complying with necessary formalities and further, having received the sale certificate in that regard, in law, was entitled to get the original title documents in respect of the stated properties - HELD THAT:- The guarantor cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate from the commitment made in successive proceedings before the DRT and the High Court.
Suffice it to observe that the guarantor has successively raised the issue regarding the validity of subject mortgage in different proceedings unsuccessfully. The concerned forum/Court unambiguously rejected the same. More importantly, the guarantor through its Director(s) having offered to pay the entire outstanding dues and also admitting on affidavit the factum of existence of subject mortgage in favour of the Bank, the question of showing any indulgence to the guarantor (by the High Court) did not arise. The guarantor cannot be allowed to raise the same plea repeatedly on every occasion/in every proceeding. Notably, the auction sale stands concluded and followed by issuance of sale certificate in favour of the appellant. Resultantly, the Bank is under legal obligation to handover the title deeds or original documents being Exhibits A110 to A114 to the appellant for completion of the formalities of sale - the High Court should have been loath in entertaining the writ petition filed by the guarantor, raising the same plea ad nauseam. The reason weighed with the High Court, in our opinion, is flimsy and untenable. That cannot be countenanced at the instance of the guarantor. The inevitable effect of entertaining the stated plea of guarantor will entail encouraging vexatious plea and procrastination of the concluded auction sale by delaying handing over of title documents to the highest bidder, in whose favour sale certificate has already been issued.
Whether despite the decree of a Court of competent jurisdiction in favour of respondent No. 11 (A.R. Sridharan) concerning land bearing Paimash No. 722/4 admeasuring 1.80 acres, can the documents pertaining to that land be still made over to the appellant/auction purchaser, merely because sale certificate has been issued by the Bank in that regard? - HELD THAT:- The sale certificate, as issued by the Bank, does make reference to land bearing survey No. 282, which inter alia, consists of old Paimash No. 722/4. Therefore, to the extent of land referred to in the decree dated 16.2.1990 passed by the Court of District Munsiff, Chengalpattu in O.S. No. 186/1976 in favour of the respondent No. 11 (A.R. Sridharan), despite the issuance of sale certificate, the title document in respect of old Paimash No. 722/4 ought not to be released until the final decision in O.A. No. 11/2008 - The fact that other proceedings, including about the title in respect of land admeasuring 1.80 acres bearing Paimash No. 722/4 are pending between the parties, cannot be the basis to overlook the claim of the respondent No. 11 (A.R. Sridharan) until a Court of competent jurisdiction declares that the respondent No. 11 (A.R. Sridharan) had no subsisting right, title or interest in that property.
Admittedly, the appellant is party to the O.A., as well as, in the application filed by the Bank for return of documents. The Bank has supported the stand taken by the appellant. We find no infirmity in the appellant having approached this Court instead of the Bank, the applicant before the DRT. Even the appellant could have itself approached the DRT for this very relief. Taking any view of the matter, the objection under consideration is of no avail to the contesting respondents.
Although we are inclined to reverse the impugned decision of the High Court, however, for the nature of controversy brought before us, it may be appropriate to modify the operative order of the DRAT to the effect that the application filed by the Bank being I.A. No. 995/2017 in O.A. No. 11/2008 is partly allowed by ordering return of the original documents, except in respect of the land bearing Paimash No. 722/4 admeasuring 1.80 acres being subject matter of decree in O.S. No. 186/1976. This arrangement will meet the ends of justice in the facts of the present case.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2020 (4) TMI 729
Method of calculation of tax liability - Execution of works contract - whether tax liability should be determined as per the GST regime @ 12% or under the VAT regime @5%? - HELD THAT:- Circular No.3/2017-GST dated 24.08.2017 clearly defines the mechanism for payment of GST and deduction of tax at source (TDS) in respect of works contractors and suppliers - The aforesaid Circular dated 24.08.2017 has provided the detailed methodology for payment of tax by way of TDS in respect of works executed during and post VAT period.
This Court is of the view that under such circumstances, the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam will decide the exact liability of the petitioner to pay tax by referring to the said Circular No.3/2017-GST dated 24.08.2017 so that the petitioner can pay tax as liable to be paid by him either under the rate fixed under the VAT regime or under the GST regime, as the case may be - the matter is remanded to the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam for determination of tax liability of the petitioner which may be decided on the basis of the Circular dated 24.08.2017 and the petitioner will accordingly deposit the determined tax amount.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (4) TMI 728
Registration of members of the petitioner society - CGST Act, 2017 - the respondent no. 2 has refused to purchase the books from the members of the petitioner’s society only on the ground that they are not able to supply the GST registration number. - respondents shall seek instructions and if required, file a counter affidavit within a period of two weeks - HELD THAT:- List on 27th March, 2020.
-
2020 (4) TMI 727
Filing of Form 'TRAN-1' by the extended date - The decision was passed in view of judgement of ADFERT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2019 (11) TMI 282 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] where the respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to file Form 'TRAN-1' by the extended date - HELD THAT:- Issue decided in the case of M/S. AJAY HARDWARE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [2019 (12) TMI 414 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] where it was held that Merely, because the implementation has been stayed in Review by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in our considered opinion, is no ground to review our judgment, however, in our view, the appropriate remedy for the Revenue would be to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing an appeal. - application dismissed.
-
2020 (4) TMI 726
Penalty u/s 271(C) - proceeding initiated against u/s 201 (1) (1A) - no-reply to show cause notice - request for a period of three weeks to respond to the same on account of the lockdown declared by the Government of India across India so as to effectively deal with the Covid-19 pandemic - HELD THAT:- Immediately after the lockdown is withdrawn by the Government, a period of two weeks reckoned therefrom is granted to the petitioner to reply to the Notices to the show cause issued by the respondent. Immediately after receiving replies to the Notices to show cause, the respondent shall be at liberty to take further steps in both the matters, in accordance with law.
Both the petitions are disposed of alongwith the pending applications in terms of the aforesaid statement made by the learned Senior Standing Counsel of the respondent/Department and the order passed above.
-
2020 (4) TMI 725
Exemption u/s 54B denied - appellant and his three brothers had sold jointly owned land and for his 1/4th share he purchased land in the name of his wife and claimed exemption under Section 54B - HELD THAT:- It is an undisputed fact that after selling the agricultural land the appellant purchased a land worth his share, in the name of his wife. The issue is directly covered by the decision of this Court in Dinesh Verma's case [2015 (7) TMI 486 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] wherein declined the exemption Section 54B as it requires the assessee to purchase the property from out of the sale consideration of the capital asset. It does not entitle the assessee to the benefit conferred therein if the subsequent property is purchased by a person other than the assessee including a close relative even such as his wife or children. If the legislature intended conferring such a benefit, it would have provided for the same expressly.
The reliance of Gurnam Singh's case [2008 (4) TMI 28 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT]will not enhance the case of the appellant as the property in that case was purchased in the joint name of the assessee and his only son, which is not the case in the present case. - Decided against assessee.
-
2020 (4) TMI 724
Interest u/s 244A OR 132B(4) - not refunding the seized amount - demand against the petitioner justifying retention of the seized amount, yet no interest was paid - HELD THAT:- Clause (b) of Section 244A of the Act talks of all other cases than mentioned in clause (a) and (aa) for giving interest from the date of payment to the date on which the refund is granted. The refund of amount became due to the petitioner under the Act after finalisation of the assessment i.e. 21.1.2014 and the same was refunded on 4.7.2017, in such circumstances, the case is covered under clause (b) of Section 244A of the Act.
Sections 132B and 244A of the Act are independent provisions and are not over-lapping. Rather, Section 132B(4) of the Act deals with interest for the period from seizing of the amount till finalisation of the assessment and Section 244A of the Act operates for the period after the refund has become due under the Act.
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Manohar Lal's case [2001 (2) TMI 99 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ]took a view that Section 132B of the Act is a self contained code, the assets seized have to be dealt with under Section 132(6) of the Act and payment of interest is to be made under Section 132B(4) of the Act and Section 244 of the Act had no application. With utmost respect, we are not in agreement with the view taken by Madhya Pradesh High Court for the reasons mentioned above.
WP allowed. The petitioner shall be entitled to interest under Section 244A of the Act for the period from 22.1.2014 till the date of payment.
-
2020 (4) TMI 723
Addition u/s 37(1) - non-competition fee - revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- Tribunal considering the decision in the case of M/s McDowell & Co. Ltd. [2002 (2) TMI 302 - ITAT BANGALORE] held that the entire payment by the assessee is allowable as revenue expenditure and not merely 1/4th of payment towards non-competition fee as it does not bring in any capital asset and held that the payment is allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act and directed the Assessing Officer to give appropriate relief after re-computing the income as per the direction of this Tribunal and modified the order of the Tribunal to the said extent. We find no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. It has followed its earlier order in the case of M/s McDowell & Co. Ltd correctly - Substantial question of law is answered against the revenue.
-
2020 (4) TMI 722
Allowance under explanation to section 35(1)(ii) - whether the donee sent back the donation to the donor ? - Tribunal justified in remitting the matter back to the file of the assessing officer or not? - HELD THAT:- Having given a finding that the appellant is entitled to exemption, the Tribunal went further and based on sworn statement of founder director of M/s.Herbicure Healthcare Bio-herbal Research Foundation that the organization returned the donation to the assessee, thought it fit to remand the matter to ascertain the means of the assessee and the actual amount paid by the assessee and decide the issue afresh after affording sufficient opportunities to the assessee.
This Court does not find anything wrong with that. The approach of the Tribunal is very balanced. Initially, it found that the disallowance made by the lower authorities is unsustainable and allowance should be given, however, based on the statement made by the donee, the Tribunal rightly remanded the matter to the assessing officer.
-
2020 (4) TMI 721
Deduction u/s 80P - assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 - CIT(A) rejected the objections raised by the assessee and passed orders u/s 154 disallowing the claim of the assessee u/s 80P(2) - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) had initially allowed the appeals of the assessee and granted deduction u/s 80P(2) of the I.T.Act. Subsequently, the CIT(A) passed orders u/s 154 wherein the claim of deduction u/s 80P was denied, by relying on the judgment of The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2019 (3) TMI 1580 - KERALA HIGH COURT] The CIT(A) ought not to have rejected the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2) of the I.T.Act without examining the activities of the assessee-society.
The Full Bench of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. V. CIT (supra) had held that the A.O. has to conduct an inquiry into the factual situation as to the activities of the assessee society to determine the eligibility of deduction u/s 80P - In view of the dictum laid we restore the issue of deduction u/s 80P(2) to the files of the AO to examine the activities of the assessee and determine whether the activities are in compliance with the activities of a co-operative society functioning under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and accordingly grant deduction u/s 80P(2) - Appeal filed by the assessee allowed for statistical purposes.
............
|
9911796707
