9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment order passed under s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. The only interconnected issue raised by the assessee is that the learned Principal CIT erred in holding the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 3. The assessee in the year under consideration, besides the other interest income has claimed a deduction6 under section 80P of the Act amounting to (13,35,040.00 on the FD made with Rajkot DC bank. As per the learned PCIT the impugned interest income was not arising from the activity of financing from the members. Therefore, the assessee is not eligible for deduction f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with respect to the deduction of the interest income earned by the assessee from the co-operative bank. Some of the judgements are in favour of the assessee and some of them are against the assessee. It is also an admitted fact that the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat is in favour of the assessee with respect to the interest on deposits made with the co-operative bank. The relevant extract of the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of in case of CIT vs. Sabarkantha District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. in Tax Appeal No. 473 of 2014 reads as under: "Considering Section 80(P)(2)(d) of the Act when the only requirement was that the income should be received from investment in Cooperative Societies and the Cooperative Bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Officer as well as the Tribunal had found that the expenses were apportioned on a rational basis and it would not be open for the Court to go beyond that finding which appeared to have been reached on the basis of the material on record which showed that in the earlier years the same proportion for dividing the expenses was consistently followed. The department had not been able to show that for those earlier two years any objection was raised against such apportionment. [Para 7] In view of the above detailed discussion and judicial precedent, we find no error in the order of AO so as to justify the initiation of proceedings under section 263 of the Act by the Ld. Pr. CIT. Thus, the revisional order passed by the learned PCIT is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
