TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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) of the Act applying the ratio of 62.75%. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.6352/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 14-10-2021 - SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etail lending and also offers long term finance for construction of homes. The assessee the business income of Rs. 876230348/- before deduction u/s 36(1)(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 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 consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corded that, as a matter of fact, this issue is falling for consideration from the assessment year 1998-99 to 2012-13 and every year in appeal, CIT(A) has been granting relief. Learned CIT(A) places reliance on the orders of her predecessors for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11 and granted relief. Learned AR brought to our notice that for the assessment year 2009-10 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) 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. In view of the consistent view taken by the first appellate authority right from 1998-99 to 2012-13 and also the Tribunal for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, in the absence of any change of either facts or law, we find it difficult 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 appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
