TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le jurisdictional High Court at Calcutta in the case of SE, SEC E.Co. Railways Employees Cooperative Credit Society [ 2014 (10) TMI 848 - ITAT KOLKATA ] and M/S JAOLI TALUKA SAHAKARI VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER 15 (1) (2) , MUMBAI. [ 2015 (9) TMI 170 - ITAT MUMBAI] - I.T.A. No. 144/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 - - - Dated:- 17-11-2017 - Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM Shri A. T. Varke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ible for deduction u/s. 80-P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 4. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is a primary employee co-operative credit society registered in 1911. The assessee has filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year under consideration on 28.09.2012 declaring a gross total income of ₹ 3,79,82,041/- and after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t earned from such investments would be eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. But the AO being dissatisfied with the reply of the assessee and, inter alia, relying on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgar s Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. Vs. ITO (2010) 188 Taxman 282 (SC) allowed the interest income derived by the co-operative society from its investments with other co- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iety Ltd. (supra). Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that the issue before us is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) in holding that the interest income from nationalized banks was income from business and was eligible for deduction u/s. 80-P of the Act. We note that the issue is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court of Kolkata has adjudicated in favour of a similarly placed assessee in a similar matter, the grounds taken by the appellant in this matter (disputed amount of ₹ 2,43,97,796/-) are allowed. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of assessee by following the aforesaid to decisions, cited supra and the Ld. DR was unable to controvert the aforesaid finding of the Ld. CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
