9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 2137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see carries on banking business." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) without considering the fact that the income of the assessee is taxable with the insertion of section 80P(4) and sub clause (viia) to section 2(24) vide Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 01.04.2007". 3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing a deduction of Rs. 8,50,000/- being staff leave encashment and election expenditure". 4. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 5. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nditions laid down u/s 56(c)(ccv) of Part V of the Banking Regulation Ac, 1949 for being a primary co-operative bank. Thus, under sub-section (4) of section 80P, the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) would not be allowable to the assessee. Accordingly, the deduction claimed by the assessee at Rs. 1,45,60,585 was disallowed by the A.O. and added to the total income of the assessee. The A.O. further made addition of Rs. 8,59,440/- out of various expenses claimed by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after considering the case of both the parties allowed the appeal of the assessee. Now before us, the revenue has preferred the present appeal by raising the above grounds. Ground No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ative Sales Society Ltd Vs. ITO reported in (2010) 322 ITR page 283. Thus, he submitted that interest income shown by the assessee cannot be claimed as deduction u/s 80p. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel submitted that the assessee has not deposited any funds with any commercial banks or government securities for the earning of interest. The assessee is a co-operative credit society and it is accepting fixed deposits from its members or giving loan to its members and providing other credit facilities. It is earning interest income from its members on the loan advanced to them. It is not State CO-operative Bank and therefore, it cannot be held that section 80P(4) is applicable. In support of his contention, he strongly relied upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be treated under exclusionary clause of sub-section 4 of section 86p. The Hon 'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jafari Momin Vikash Cooperative4 Credit Society Ltd. (supra), after noting down the CBDT circular no. 133 of 2007 dated 09.05.2007 has explained the said provision in the following manner.- Thus, it was held by the Hon 'ble High Court that deduction in respect of Co-operative Credit Society is available u/s. 80P(1) and they cannot be equated with Co-operative Bank. In the other decisions of the Tribunal as referred by the Ld. Counsel, we find that in all the cases, the Tribunal had taken note of the definition of the Co-operative Bank under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and also the definition of Co-o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. In the circumstances, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the appellants own case, the addition of Rs 1,45,60,585 is deleted and the AO is directed to grant deduction u/s 80P as claimed by the appellant. Ground 1 is allowed. After having gone through the facts of the present case as well as considering the orders passed by revenue authorities and order of Hon'ble ITAT as mentioned above in assessee's own case, we find that Ld. CIT(A) after appreciating the facts of the present case and while reaching to the conclusion for granting deduction to the assessee u/s 80P had relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in assessee's own case for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 5285/Mum/13. Even before us, the Ld. DR could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed as it is only appropriation of profit. The appellant submitted that Rs 4,50,000 is staff leave encashment while Rs 4,00,000 are election expenditure. The AO did not accept this position and added these amounts to the total income. From the details before me, it is apparent that these are allowable expenses u/s 37(l). Be that as it may, as I have already held that the appellant is eligible to claim a deduction of the whole of the profits attributable to its activities, this allowance or otherwise of this expenditure is infructuous. To put it simply, even if these amounts are disallowed, the same would be eligible for a deduction u/s 80P. Accordingly, the disallowance of Rs 8,59,560 is deleted. Ground 2 is allowed. After having gone th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
