9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 2,88,873/- + Rs.l,54,875/- + ₹ 56,400/-]. The gross total income of the appellant would be higher by an amount of ₹ 211275/- than what has been shown by the appellant in its computation of income submitted in response to the show cause. The gross total income of the appellant is therefore taken at ₹ 1555407/- as against ₹ 1344132/- determined by him. Coming to the deductions claimed by the appellant in its revised computation before me, the deductions of ₹ 28,224/- u/s. 80P(2)(a)(iv), ₹ 50,000/- u/s. 80P(2)(c) and ₹ 395471/- u/s. 80P(2)(d) are held as admissible to the appellant. Its claim of deduction of ₹ 539379/- u/s. 80P(2)(iii) of the act in respect of vegetable commission is inadmiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Yadav, Sr.DR For the Respondent : Shri Sapnesh Sheth ORDER Per Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-IV, Surat ( CIT(A) in short) dated 30/12/2010 pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- [1] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld.CIT(A), Surat has erred in re-computing the total income after deduction u/s.80P of ₹ 10,81,712/- as against ₹ 50,04,034/- determined by the A.O. after making disallowing on account of : i. Disallowance of fertilizer income ₹ 28224/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue is in appeal before us. 3. The only effective ground in this appeal is against the disallowances of deduction claimed u/s.80P(2) of the Act. The ld.Sr.DR Shri B.L.Yadav vehemently argued that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the disallowances. He reiterated the submissions as were made in the statement of facts. He submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has not appreciated that the assessee has failed to explain the justification for claiming deduction u/s.80P of the Act. 3.1. On the contrary, the ld.counsel for the assessee supported the order of the ld.CIT(A). 4. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find the ld.CIT(A) has given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , income from premises given on rent to Bank of Baroda, M/s. Dhiraj Sons (Mega Stores) and Baroda Swarojgar Vikas Sansthan is also not eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the act as it does not fulfill the criteria prescribed u/s. 80P(2)(e) and (f) of the act. 3.2. Based on the above the fresh computation of income of the appellant was done adding back the inadmissible expenses in the nature of building fund provisions, property expenses, different reserves, stamp duty expenses, donation, provision for new land compound, compound provision, property tax, TDS, building funds, Sabar Gram Project provision, etc and computing income from property rent under house property income and interest and dividend as income from other sources. It was o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 95,471/- u/s 80P(2)(d). iii) Marketing of Agricultural produce of members ₹ 5,39,379/- u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii). iv) Basic deduction ₹ 50,000/- u/s 80P(2)(c). Total... ₹ 10,13,074/- 5. It is seen from the computation of income submitted by the appellant's A.R. during the course of appeal in response to the show cause that it had not disallowed the following inadmissible :- Compound provision Rs.50,000/- Land Development ₹ 7,650/- Construction contribution Rs.4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CNG and Petrol business. The appellant is therefore not eligible for any deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the act. Its claim that no expenditure relating to commission income received from members is debited in the P. L. account is untenable. All expenses pertaining to all other activities have been accounted for separately, i.e. in the accounts maintained individually for each activity. The expenses in the P. L. account pertained only to the vegetable commission activity. The total deduction u/s. 80P of the act is admissible to the appellant is only ₹ 473695/- [ ₹ 28,224/- + ₹ 3,95,471/- + ₹ 50,000/-]. The total taxable income of the appellant which is gross total income less deduction u/s. 80P(2) of the act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
