TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n allowing 50% of the expenses claimed by the assessee in earning the impugned commission received from MSEDCL. Assessee has failed to prove that the said expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning the commission income. Sale of loan application form - As observed that the assessee has failed to furnish relevant details pertaining to the expenses claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned heads. Even during the second round of litigation, the assessee has not submitted any additional evidences pertaining to the said claim either before us or before the lower authorities. Interest on deposit on security from MSEDCL - AR submitted that similar receipts were derived by the assessee society in A.Y. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is a co-operative credit society whose primary function is to advance loans to the members. The assessee filed its return of income dated 10.09.2008, declaring the total income of Rs.Nil. The assessee s case was processed u/s.144 r.w.s. 254 of the Act and assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act was passed on 29.12.2010 by assessing the total income at Rs.Nil, after granting deduction u/s.80P of the Act. 4. Subsequent to this, proceeding u/s.263 of the Act was initiated on the ground that the assessee has derived income from Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Limited (MSEDCL), amounting to Rs.2,88,534/- and the same was reflected as other receipt in profit and loss account of the assessee and that the deduction u/s.80P was to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the ground that the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim before the ld. CIT(A) even in the second round of appeal. 8. Aggrieved by this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. During the appellate proceedings, the ld. Authorized Representative (AR for short) for the assessee represented that the ground no. 1 of appeal challenging the reopening u/s. 147 of the Act was not be pressed by the assessee and hence ground no. 1 in ITA No. 1712/Mum/2021 is not adjudicated and is, therefore, dismissed. 10. Ground nos. 2 3 pertains to the additions made by the A.O. as commission received from MSEDCL, after allowing 50% expenses against the impugned commission. It is observed that the assessee has derived income of Rs.2,88,534 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not entitled for deduction 80P of the Act, the Tribunal in the earlier year has allowed the claim of the assessee u/s. 80P of the Act and had remanded only to verify that the impugned expenses claimed by the assessee pertained to the earning of the commission income. It is evident that the actual dispute in these appeals does not pertain to the deduction u/s.80P of the Act rather, restricted only to the expenses whether it was incurred wholly and exclusively for earning exempt income. 13. The ld. AR for the assessee contended that the lower authorities have failed to consider the assessee s claim of 95% expenses against the amount of commission received which was to be allowed. 14. The ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounds raised by the assessee. Hence, ground nos. 2 3 are dismissed. 17. Ground nos. 1 3 in ITA Nos. 1723 and 1724/Mum/2021 are on identical facts except for variation in the quantum. Hence, the above finding applies mutatis mutandis for these grounds in ITA Nos. 1723 and 1724/Mum/2021. Hence, ground nos. 1 3 are dismissed. 18. Ground no. 2 in ITA Nos. 1723 1724/Mum/2021 pertains to the claim of expenses against the following heads: a) Sale of loan application form Rs.102679/- b) Interest on deposit on security from MSEDCL of Rs.35256/- c) The Miscellaneous Receipt of Rs.120688/- d) Recovery Expenses of Rs.924223/- e) Interest on loan to staff interest on employees housing loan of Rs.575425/- It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
