2022 (7) TMI 33 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 36(1)(viii) - Amount transferred to Special Reserve - AO was of the view that the claim made by the assessee was not in accordance with the provision of the Act - HELD THAT - We find that for working out the income from eligible business on which deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act is allowable, assessee had considered the ratio of interest income from Long Term housing loan to total interest income as against the working of AO being the ratio of interest income from Long Term housing loan to total receipts. We find that identical issue arose before the Tribunal in assessee s case for A.Y. 2015-16 decided issue in favour of assessee as held that methodology adopted by the assessee is consistently followed for last eight years. Same was accepted by the revenue without any objection - 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.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance under section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act.
2. Validity of the CIT(A)'s decision in favor of the assessee.
3. Consistency of the method adopted by the assessee for deduction u/s 36(1)(viii).

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance under section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act
The appeal filed by the Revenue challenged the deletion of disallowance of Rs.5,12,13,197/- under section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act by the CIT(A). The AO disallowed the excess claim made by the assessee regarding the deduction under this section, as he disagreed with the method adopted by the assessee for computing the deduction. The assessee's method involved considering the ratio of interest income from Long Term housing loan to total interest income, while the AO believed the ratio should be based on total receipts. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee, noting that similar issues have been decided in favor of the assessee in previous years. The Revenue, aggrieved by the CIT(A)'s decision, appealed to the Tribunal.

Issue 2: Validity of the CIT(A)'s decision in favor of the assessee
The CIT(A) based his decision on the consistency of previous rulings in favor of the assessee regarding the computation of deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act. Noting that similar issues have been decided in favor of the assessee in earlier years, the CIT(A) directed the deletion of the disallowed amount. The Revenue challenged this decision before the Tribunal, arguing that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing previous rulings and lack of new evidence or distinguishing features in the present case.

Issue 3: Consistency of the method adopted by the assessee for deduction u/s 36(1)(viii)
The Tribunal, in its decision, highlighted the consistent method adopted by the assessee for computing the deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act. Referring to previous Tribunal orders, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision, as there were no changes in facts or laws. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the importance of consistency in applying the method for deduction u/s 36(1)(viii).

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision in favor of the assessee regarding the disallowance under section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of consistency in applying the method for computing deductions and cited previous rulings in support of its decision.