9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in Law, the Ld.CIT(A), Surat has erred in re-computing the total income after deduction u/s.80P of Rs. 10,81,712/- as against Rs. 50,04,034/- determined by the A.O. after making disallowing on account of : i. Disallowance of fertilizer income Rs. 28224/- ii. Disallowance of income earned on account f petrol/CNG Rs. 2337510/- iii.Disallowance of rent income Rs. 1824305/- iv.Disallowance of veg.commission income Rs. 447430/- v. Disallowance of interest of FD Rs. 376565/- Total Rs. 5004034/- [2] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in Law, the Ld.CIT(A), Surat ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. [3] It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-IV, Surat may be set as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es below. We find the ld.CIT(A) has given findings on fact in paras-3.1 to 5.1 of his order are as under:- "3.1.The correct method for determining the income of the appellant which is a co-operative society would be to first determine its gross total income from all activities carried out by it and then allowing deduction u/s.80P(2) of the act, to the extent it pertains to eligible activities. The determination of taxable income by the A.O. wherein he has simply considered profits from different ineligible activities as taxable income is incorrect. With a view to determine the correct income of the appellant, the accounts were perused which show that the appellant had claimed several capital expenses and made provisions and reserves in its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s income from other sources. It was observed that assessee was eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the act of Rs. 3,92,471/- (interest and dividend earned from other co-operatives including bank) and 80P(2)(c) of Rs. 50,000/- and. 80P(2)(iv) of the act, Rs. 28,224/- (purchase and sales of fertilizers for members). No deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the act - sale of produce of members was available since this activity had resulted in loss to the appellant. The assessee was given a show cause in terms of provisions of section 251(2) of the Act as to why his income should not be determined in this way. The appellant was also required to show as to whether payment of provident fund and other similar dues and taxes were actually made or n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Rs. 56,400/-. Therefore the income determined from its business and profession would be Rs. 77,598/- (Loss) as against loss of Rs. 2,88,873/- shown by the appellant [ - Rs. 2,88,873/- + Rs.l,54,875/- + Rs. 56,400/-]. The gross total income of the appellant would be higher by an amount of Rs. 211275/- than what has been shown by the appellant in its computation of income submitted in response to the show cause. The gross total income of the appellant is therefore taken at Rs. 1555407/- as against Rs. 1344132/- determined by him. Coming to the deductions claimed by the appellant in its revised computation before me, the deductions of Rs. 28,224/- u/s. 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the act, Rs. 50,000/- u/s. 80P(2)(c) of the act and Rs. 395471/- u/s. 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
