TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 1027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... da) P. Ltd vs. Union of India [ 1985 (7) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal allowing the deduction to the assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act on the amount of interest and dividend earned on the investment / deposits with the other cooperative societies. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. Under the circumstances, in all these appeals with respect to grant of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act is held against the revenue Admission of additional evidence - appeal of the revenue against the order of learned CIT(A) being bad in law, being passed against the natural justice, where new claim was acce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 2.8.2013 passed in ITA No. 367/AHD/2010 for AY 2006 07, the appellant revenue has preferred present Tax Appeal No.410 of 2014 with the following substantial questions of law. A.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in fact in concluding that there is no nexus between the interest /dividend income earned from the Cooperative Societies and the interest expenditure incurred by the assessee on borrowed funds on the ground that there is no proof of the investment of such interest bearing funds to earn the said income without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to substantiate the above in ful ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tial question of law. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in fact in concluding that there is no nexus between the interest /dividend income earned from the Cooperative Societies and the interest expenditure incurred by the assessee on borrowed funds on the ground that there is no proof of the investment of such interest bearing funds to earn the said income without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to substantiate the above in full measure with proper evidences? 3.0. That the assessee submitted his return of income for the Assessment Years 2006 07, 2007 08 and 2008 09. That in the computation of income, assessee claim deduction under Section 80P(2) (d) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isfied with the orders passed by the learned CIT(A), the Revenue preferred appeals before the learned ITAT and by impugned common judgment and order, the learned Tribunal has dismissed all the appeals. 3.4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, the Revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeals with the aforesaid proposed substantial question of law. 4.0. We have heard Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned counsel for the revenue and perused and considered in detailed the orders passed by the learned CIT(A) as well as learned Tribunal. Now, so far as proposed question A with respect to deduction claim by the assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act is concerned, at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) not before the A.O. is not acceptable. The appellant had given all the details before the A.O. on which ld. A.O. concluded otherwise. The balance sheet as well as p l account were available in all the years that the A.O. gave these figures on which the ld. CIT(A) relied upon, had taken from either balance sheet or p l account. Thus, there is no additional evidence submitted by the appellant before the CIT(A) in A.Y. 2006 07. We dismiss the appeal on ground no.1 in A.Y. 06 07. Further the A.O. considered Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Distributors (baroda) P. Ltd. vs. Union of India [1985] 155 ITR 120 (SC), wherein, it was held that deduction u/s.80M is to be calculated with reference to amount on dividend computed in accordanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd vs. Union of India reported in (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC), we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal allowing the deduction to the assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act on the amount of interest and dividend earned on the investment / deposits with the other cooperative societies. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. Under the circumstances, in all these appeals with respect to grant of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act is held against the revenue. 5.0. Now, so far as question No.B in Tax Appeal No.410 of 2014 that whether the learned ITAT has erred in deciding the appeal of the revenue against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
