9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he sake of convenience. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in Assessment Year 2012-13 are as under. "1. The Assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer ("AO")and the order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)"] under Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") are not in accordance with the law and is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2. The Ld CIT(A) and AO has erred, in law and in facts, by holding interest income amounting to INR 617,749 and dividend income amounting to INR 20,274 shall not be eligible to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act. 3. The Ld CIT(A) and AO has erred in law by holding that interest / dividend income received on idle funds invested with ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent case. 2. The Ld CIT(A) and AO has erred, in law and in facts, by holding interest income amounting to INR 16,98,106 and dividend income amounting to INR 23,833 shall not be eligible to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act. 3. The Ld CIT(A) and AO has erred in law by holding that interest / dividend income received on idle funds invested with other members or financial institutions shall not be considered as income from business or profession. 4. The Ld CIT(A) and AO has failed to acknowledge the facts that, the interest income considered as business income and eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act, since the interest income is considered to be incidental to carrying the main activities of the business. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the facts of the present case are similar to the facts in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra) or PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society (supra). The bench also wanted to know as to whether the facts are available in the paper book. In reply it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that those facts are not readily available and there is no finding of lower authorities regarding the relevant facts of the present case and therefore, the matter may be restored back to the file of AO for fresh decision after examining the facts of the present case in the light of these two judgments. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT(A). 5. I have considered the rival submissions. First ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of profits and gains, was not immediately required by the assessee for lending money to the members, as there were no takers. Therefore they had deposited the money in a bank so as to earn interest. The said interest income is attributable to carrying on the business of banking and therefore it is liable to be deducted in terms of Section 80P (1) of the Act. In fact similar view is taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX III, HYDERABAD VS. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., reported in (2011) 200 TAXMAN 220/12. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the appellate authorities denying the benefit of deduction of the aforesaid amount is unsustainable in law. Accordingly it is hereby ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
