TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of assessee as held that methodology adopted by the assessee is consistently followed for last eight years. Same was accepted by the revenue without any objection - When the method has been consistently accepted for the above year we do not find any reason to defer from that. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in allowing the assessee claim of deduction u/s 36(1 )(viii) of the Act applying the ratio of 62.75%. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 7518/Del/2019 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2022 - SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHARY , JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : Shri S. Krishnan , Adv Shri V. Rajakumar , Adv Revenue by : Shri Akhilesh Gupta , Sr. D. R. ORDER PER ANIL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of the amount transferred to Special Reserve. The AO was of the view that the claim made by the assessee was not in accordance with the provision of the Act. He accordingly show-caused the assessee as to why the deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act be not allowed as per the provision of the Act. In respect to the aforesaid query of the AO, assessee inter alia submitted that during the year under consideration assessee had earned business income of Rs.507,06,13,211/- before deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act. Assessee had earned total interest income of Rs.2460,02,58,902/- which included Rs.1415,18,49,334/- that was earned on account of interest on Long Term Housing Loan and thus the ratio of interest on Long Term housing loan t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee has noted that the issue of computation of rebate u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act has been subject matter of appeal from A.Y. 1998-99 to A.Y. 2012-13 and every year the Ld CIT(A) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. He also noted that in A.Y. 2014-15, CIT(A) by following the order of CIT(A) for A.Y. 1998-99 to A.Y. 2012-13 had decided the issue in favour of the assessee. He therefore following the decision of his predecessor, directed the deletion of the addition of Rs.5,12,13,197/-. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal. 6. Before us, Learned DR supported the order of lower ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by observing as under: 3. The solitary ground raised by the Revenue in this appeal relates to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 3,08,75,079/- u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act by the learned CIT(A). 4. On bare perusal, we find that identical issue raised by the Revenue has already been adjudicated in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal, dated 04.12.2019 passed in ITA No. 2810/Del/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11. The Learned DR did not contradict this factual matrix. The relevant findings of the order of the Tribunal (supra) are reproduced as under: 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 al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act applying the ratio of 62.75%. In the result we do not find any merit in ground No. 1 of the appeal. Hence, it is dismissed. 4.1 Further, in assessment year 2014-15 (ITA No. 5969/Del/2017, order dated: 24.08.2021), this issue again decided in favour of the assessee. The relevant findings are reproduced as under: In so far as the addition of Rs.1,88,65,937/- is concerned, Id. Assessing Officer recorded that for the assessment year 2010-11 also, while not accepting the method adopted by the assessee, similar addition was made and, therefore, while following the same for this year also, the disallowance u/s. 36(l)(viii) of the Act to the tune of Rs.1,88,65,937/- was made. On this aspect, learned CIT(A) recorded that, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 only issue is that assessee is computed with respect to the total income with respect to the interest income whereas the Id AO has applied the above ratio to the total receipt. When the method has been consistently accepted for the above year we do not find any reason to defer from that. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in allowing the assessee claim of deduction u/s 36(1 )(viii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
