TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount only and AO himself could have computed the 20% of profit derived from the eligible business. The appellant has again furnished all the required details and worked out the profit 20% of profit thereof. Amount credited to special reserve which is 20% of the income from housing loans and SSI long term loans. This working has not been challenge by AO. It is therefore, held that the appellant has claimed expenses under this head as per provisions of section 36(1)(viii) which are allowable to him. In the result, appeal on this ground is allowed. Addition made on account of Reclassification of capital gain as business income - HELD THAT:- Since, the facts on the issue are identical as that of A.Y. 2009-10, therefore, this issue is se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay if the litigant satisfied the court that there were sufficient reason for availing the remedy after expiry of limitation. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Administration Hawara Municipality AIR 1972 SC- 749 while considering the scope of expression of sufficient cause for condonation of delay, has held that the court should have liberal construction said expression should receive so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or in action or want of bonafide imputable to the party. We find that there was no malafide intention on the part of A.O. therefore, we are of the view that the A.O. is able to demonstrate sufficient reason for delay in filing of appeal. Therefore, we deem it fit to condo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that the issue have been duly covered by the decision of Tribunal in the favour of the assessee vide order for A.Y. 2009-10 in ITA No.2791/Ahd//2012 dtd.23.08.2013. 10. We have considered the facts and rival submission. We find that the issue has been duly covered by the decision of Tribunal in the assessee s own case for A.Y. 2009-10 dtd.23.08.2013 wherein, the Hon ble Tribunal observed as under : 9. Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee s submission was as follows : 3.2 During the appellate proceedings, it was explained by appellant that during the assessment proceedings complete details of working out the 20% of profits derived, were furnished to the AO but the same were ignored As regards Ground No.II about deduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 50,09,000/- which is 20% of the income from housing loans and SSI long term loans. This working has not been challenge by AO. It is therefore, held that the appellant has claimed expenses under this head as per provisions of section 36(1)(viii) which are allowable to him. In the result, appeal on this ground is allowed. Since the above finding of the Ld. CIT(A) remained uncontroverted at the time of hearing before us, we feel no need to interfere with the order passed by him and the same is hereby upheld. This ground of the revenue is also dismissed. 9. In view of above, since the facts are identical, therefore, respectively following Tribunal order dtd.23.08.2013, we find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invested as per the guidelines of RBI for any other purpose. Since, maintaining the SLR ratio they are purely for running the business of the bank has been shown as income from business. Maintaining the SLR to the tune of 25% of its term and demand liability the statutory requirement of bank which they cannot be permitted by RBI to run their business. Since, these SLR securities are requirement of business of bank, any income earned out of it has to be treated as business income. 13. Being aggrieved, the assessee , the Revenue has filed appeal before us. The learned DR submitted that the learned CIT(A) while giving relief to the assessee as discussed in the case of Sardar Indra Singh and Sons Ltd. v. CIT CA No.40 of 1952 dtd.23.09.1953 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
