9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s erred in law and on facts in treating the case as fit for revision u/s 263 of The Income tax Act, 1961. 2. The learned Pr. CIT has erred in law and in facts in Assessing the Total Income at Rs. 1,02,11,170/- as against the originally assessed income of Rs. 1,06,410/- 3. The learned Pr. CIT has erred in law and in facts in rejecting the claim of the appellant u/s 80P with respect to Interest Income earned from various nationalized and scheduled banks and government companies to the tune of Rs. 50,37,428/-. 4. CIT has erred in law and in facts in rejecting the claim of the appellant u/s 80P by treating the Annual Crop Charges Income as Rent to the tune of Rs. 8,13,046/-. 5. The learned Pr. CIT has erred in law and in facts in reject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. DCIT 280 ITR 357 (Madras) to contend that there is no hard and fast rule in the matter of condonation of delay and the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach and should exercise their discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the expression 'sufficient cause' the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance and it should receive a liberal construction. In the instant facts, we are of the considered view that the assessee could demonstrate sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal. Accordingly, we are hereby condoning the delay in filing the appeal of the assessee. 4. On merits, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative Society deriv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed by the AO while finalizing the assessment without examining the facts of the case. (iv) The assessee had claimed set-off of business losses of AY 2011-12 of Rs. 52,10,105/- against the income of the present year. During the course of assessment proceedings, this claim of set off was not verified by the AO and the loss claimed by the assessee was irregular as the income/loss was exempt under section 80P of the Act. Thus, the business loss claimed to the tune of Rs. 52,10,105/- without giving effect to the apportionment was irregular and wrongly allowed by the AO. 5. The assessee represented its case before the Pr. CIT , who after considering the assessee's submissions/representation dismissed the assessee's arguments and held that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase/incorrect application of law by the AO and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present his case. The Delhi ITAT in the case of MannesmannDemag A.G. v. DCIT [1995] 53 ITD 533 (Delhi)[20-03-1995] held that Commissioner can exercise jurisdiction under section 263 on basis of audit objection provided he applies his own mind before deciding whether any action is warranted under section 263 of the Act. In the instant facts, since Ld. Pr. CIT has duly applied his mind on various issues, therefore, on jurisdiction, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT. 6. Now on the merits of the 263 order passed by Ld. Pr. Ld. CIT(A), the counsel for the assessee submitted that the exemption under section 80P of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
