9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1095X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MI 1049 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) then the issue should be decided against the assessee. On a specific query from the bench, as submitted by assessee that necessary facts on this aspect are not readily available and there is no finding of any of the authorities below on this aspect. Under these facts, feel it proper to restore the matter back to the file of AO for fresh decision after examining this aspect of the facts of the present case in the light of these two judgments and in the light of above observations. Hence set aside the order of CIT (A) and restore the matter back to the file of AO for fresh decision - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA No.2874/Bang/2017 - - - Dated:- 12-3-2018 - SHRI ARUN KUMAR G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urplus and consequently the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd vs. ITO (2010) 322 ITR 272 (Karn) was again not applicable and accordingly the interest as claimed was eligible for exemption under Section 80P (2) (a) (i) of the Act. 5. Without prejudice, the disallowance as confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeals) is arbitrary, excessive, unreasonable and liable to be reduced substantially. 6. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed. 3. It was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that in the present case, the issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red in the case of PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society (supra) is a judgment dated 16.06.2017. In the first judgment, the issue in dispute was decided by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in favour of the assessee whereas in the later judgment, the issue in dispute was decided in favour of the revenue. Hence I have to first see and decide as to whether there is any contradiction in these two judgments of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. When I do so, I find that in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra), it is noted by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Para 10 of that judgment that the amount which was invested in banks to earn interest was not an amount due to any member and it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act or in section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act. Hence it is seen that there is no contradiction in these two judgments of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. The conclusion is different because the facts are different. In the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra), it was noticed that the money deposited in bank was not liability of the assessee and it was assessee s own money whereas in the case of PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society (supra), it was noted that the amount which was invested was not the own money of the assessee but was liability of the assessee. Hence I find that there is no contradiction in these two judgments and the conclusion is different becaus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
