TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew of various decisions discussed in the preceding para. Once we hold that the entire amount of interest is eligible for deduction u/s.80P, the order of the CIT directing the AO to charge to tax the full amount of interest and not its part, becomes automatically unsustainable. We, therefore, vacate the impugned order. - ITA No.713/PUN/16 - - - Dated:- 9-4-2019 - Shri R.S. Syal, Vice President And Shri Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Sunil Ganoo For the Respondent : Ms. Nandita Kanchan ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16-03-2016 passed by the Pr.CIT-2, Nashik u/s.263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called the Act ) in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed on the proposition that the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s.80P on the amount of interest on FDRs earned from nationalized banks. The decision that a higher amount ought to have been taxed by the AO is a consequence of the above view. The ld. AR placed on record a copy of an order of the Pune Bench dated 28-11-2018 in the case of ITO Vs. Sureshdada Jain Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha (ITA No.589/PN/2016) wherein the decision of ld. CIT(A) allowing deduction u/s.80P was approved by the Pune Tribunal. It is further noticed that the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Laxmi Narayan Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Vs. ITO (ITA No.604/PN/2014) has allowed similar deduction. In the said case, the Tribunal discusse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... net interest income of ₹ 2,46,208/- earned from bank FDRs after reduction of OD interest and interest paid on members deposits, which the AO eventually did. This emerges from page 30 of the paper book, which is a letter written by the assessee to the AO urging to: please accept the above calculation and co-op. for finalization of the case . It is the above net figure of ₹ 2,46,208/- which has been considered by the ld. CIT for treating the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue by holding that the gross amount of interest of ₹ 76,93,470/- should have been charged to tax and not net interest of ₹ 2,46,208/-. In our considered opinion, when the interest itself is eligible for dedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
