TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. [ 2021 (1) TMI 488 - SUPREME COURT] considered the issue relating to interest income earned and has distinguished the decisions in case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. [ 2015 (2) TMI 995 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] . In view of the above, we modify the directions of Ld. Pr. CIT by directing the Ld.AO to carry out de novo verification on the issues considered by the Ld. Pr. CIT in the impugned order having regard to the principle laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra). The assessee is directed to file all requisite details in support of the claim which would be verified b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law, the Hon'ble Pr. CIT observations and directions by way of impugned Order u/s 263 is incorrect on facts and further untenable in law and the case law relied on by the Hon'ble Pr. CIT is distinguishable on facts and circumstances of the appellant case and therefore premise on which impugned Order u/s 263 passed is an impermissible act and therefore final impugned Order u/s 263 deserved to be annulled. 5. On the facts and circumstances and on law, the Hon ble Pr. CIT has assumed the jurisdiction u/s 263 on the issues which were not part of CASS Limited scrutiny mandate resulting-in violating the CBDT guidelines/instructions and therefore assumption of improper jurisdiction u/s 263 by breaching CBDT Instructions and impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im based on the settled law on the subject and further decision relied on by the Hon'ble Pr. CIT is distinguishable to the facts of the appellant case and therefore interest on bank deposit of Rs.9,51,660/-/- denied by the Hon'ble Pr. CIT u/s 260 impugned Order is liable to be deleted and deduction be eligible to the appellant as originally allowed by learned AO. 10. On the facts and circumstances and on law, the Hon'ble Pr. CIT ought not to have brought Rs.8,72,718/- trading sale of provisions under the head different from that of business income and thereby denying the benefit u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) without appreciating that the appellant aforesaid income squarely covered u/s 80P(1) and cogent reading with provisions of Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titute, and to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: From the assessment records, it is observed that assessee claimed an amount of Rs.22,51,165/- as deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(e) of the Act. The Ld. Pr. CIT was of the opinion that assessee does not qualify for deduction under the said section however, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was only allowable to assessee u/s. 80P(2)(c) of the Act. 3. The Ld. Pr. CIT also noted that assessee made a provision for gratuity amounting to Rs. 1,00,125/- and audit fee of Rs.74,000/- and IT and ST of Rs.81,000/-. The Ld. Pr. CIT was of the opinion that the said amounts needed to be added back to the net profit as assessee did not furnish a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, the directions of the Ld. Pr. CIT to make addition in respect of the provision for gratuity as well as expressing the intention of disallowing certain income while computing 80P(2)(e) as well as (a)(i) is not in accordance with law. We also refer that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT (2021) reported in 123 taxmann.com 161 (SC) considered the issue relating to interest income earned and has distinguished the decisions of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. ITO (supra). In view of the above, we modify the directions of Ld. Pr. CIT by directing the Ld.AO to carry out de novo verification on the issues considered by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
