2016 (6) TMI 166 - AT - Income Tax

Eligibility to deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income - Held that - Respectfully following the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-op Sale Society Ltd. (2010 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT ) and taking down the fact that interest income in the present case is identical to the interest income received by the assessee in the decision referred to above. We hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of the interest income. In this view of the matter, we reverse the order of Ld. CIT(A) - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to CIT(A)'s order regarding computation of income and legal infirmity.
2. Denial of deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act.
3. Addition of provision for Gratuity Fund.
4. Confirmation of addition on account of alleged stock valuation.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant challenged the CIT(A)'s order on the computation of income, arguing that the assessment order had legal infirmities. The CIT(A) held that the income computed by the Assessing Officer was not erroneous. The appellant contended that the income was wrongly assessed at a certain amount, which they believed was not taxable under section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The Authorized Representative for the appellant did not press for ground No. 3 & 4 during the hearing, leading to their dismissal.

Issue 2:
The main issue raised was the denial of deduction under section 80P of the Act by the CIT(A). The appellant, a Co-operative Society engaged in distributing agricultural materials, claimed deduction on interest income under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The CIT(A) treated the interest income as "income from other sources" and denied the deduction without providing a reason. However, the Tribunal referred to a previous decision where a similar issue was considered and concluded that the interest income should be regarded as income from the business of banking, making it eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on the principle of consistency and overturned the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the deduction for the interest income.

Issue 3:
The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of a provision for Gratuity Fund made by the appellant. However, this issue was not elaborated upon in the detailed analysis provided in the judgment.

Issue 4:
The CIT(A) also confirmed an addition on account of alleged stock valuation. This issue was not extensively discussed in the detailed analysis provided in the judgment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appellant's appeal, primarily focusing on the denial of deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on previous rulings and the principle of consistency, ultimately favoring the appellant's claim for deduction on the interest income. The issues related to the provision for Gratuity Fund and alleged stock valuation were not specifically addressed in the detailed analysis provided in the judgment.