TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest – Held that:- There is no finding on fact that whether the deposits were maintained by the assessee for liquidity of funds for the business purpose of the assessee and whether Jafari Momin Vikas Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. is applicable to the part of deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of interest – thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of Assessee. - I.T.A. No.24/Ahd/2013, CO No.42/Ahd/2014 - - - Dated:- 2-5-2014 - Shri G. C. Gupta And Shri T. R. Meena,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri O. P. Meena, Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri M. G. Patel, A.R. ORDER Per Shri G. C. Gupta, Vice President (AZ) : This appeal by the Revenue and the Cross Objection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supra). We find that the issue in this case is covered in favour of assessee with the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jafari Momin Vikas Coop. Credit Society Ltd.(supra). The undisputed facts of the case are that the assessee was not allowed to do banking business as defined under Banking Regulation Act and, therefore, is not a co-operative bank and accordingly is not excluded from the benefit of deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act,1961 as it does not fall under the exceptions as provided u/s.80P(4) of the Act. The CIT(A) has cited certain decisions of the ITAT, wherein various Benches of the ITAT have decided the issue in favour of assessee. There being no mistake in the order of the CIT(A) on this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e submitted that with the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jafari Momin Vikas Co-op. Credit Society Ltd.(supra), the part of the addition in respect of interest amounting to Rs.5,52,119/- by not allowing the deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act by the CIT(A) should also be deleted. The ld.Sr.DR has opposed the submission of the ld.counsel for the assessee and he relied on the orders of the AO and CIT(A) on this issue. 8. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that there is no finding on fact that whether the deposits were maintained by the assessee for liquidity of funds for the business purpose of the assessee and whether the ratio of the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
