9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and a subsidiary company of Punjab National Bank. Assessee filed its original return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 29.11.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 479,67,01,950/-. The return of income was later revised on 28.03.2018 declaring total income at Rs.479,67,01,950/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 13.12.2018 and the total income was determined at Rs.484,79,15,150/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 12.06.2019 in Appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-38/10015/2019-20, allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds: 1. On the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - being eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act. It was further submitted that amount transferred to Special Reserve was Rs.58,40,00,000/- as against the amount eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act of Rs.58,34,24,760/-, the assessee has claimed the deduction as per the provisions of the Act. It was further submitted that on identical issue in earlier years, the issue has been decided by the CIT(A) in assessee's favour. The submissions of the assessee was not found acceptable to AO. AO noted that in A.Y. 2010-11, the method adopted by the assessee was not accepted by the AO. He was of the view that for working out the ratio of income eligible for computing deduction, the entire income from operations should be taken in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of Tribunal for A.Y. 2014-15 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. He pointed to the relevant findings of the Tribunal order. He therefore submitted that since there are no change in the facts of the case in the year under consideration and that of earlier years, no interference to the order of CIT(A) is called for. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present appeal is with respect to the computation of deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act. We find that for working out the income from eligible business on which deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act is allowable, assessee had considered the ratio of interest income from Long Term housing loan to total int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us assessee stated that 62.75% in on account of interest on long term housing loan and worked out applying that percentage on the total business income calculated a sum of Rs. 549834543/- pertaining to long term housing loan and computed deduction @20% of Rs. 10.99 crores as deduction. The Id Assessing Officer changed the above ratio from 62.75 % to 55.89% as he considered the total receipt of business for the purpose of working out proportion. In the present case the methodology adopted by the assessee is consistently followed for last eight years. Same was accepted by the revenue without any objection. The only issue is with respect to how the profit of the business for the purpose of long term housing finance shall be worked out. The onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 2010-11 also, this issue was considered by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No. 2123/Del/2015 and batch of cases and granted relief. The coordinate Bench, on this aspect, observed thus: "16. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The appellant is a subsidiary of Punjab National Bank and is engaged in the business of retail lending and also offers long term finance for construction of homes. The assessee the business income of Rs. 876230348/- before deduction u/s 36(l)(viii) of the Act. Subsequently, assessee claimed deduction stating that Rs. 2817156893/- was on account of total interest on housing loans and out of it Rs. 1767869838/- was on account of interest on long term housing loan. Thus assessee stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to take a different view and consequently uphold the findings of the Id. CIT(A). Hence, ground No. 1 of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed." 5. In view of above, respectfully following the decisions of the Tribunal mentioned herein above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A), therefore, we uphold the same. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed." 9. Before us, Revenue has not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the decision rendered by Co-ordinate Bench in A.Y. 2015-16 has been set aside/stayed/overruled by Higher Judicial Forum nor has pointed to any distinguishing feature in the facts of the present case as compared to that of earlier year. Considering the totality of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
