9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom other sources and therefore the provisions of Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act was not applicable to such interest income. Clear that the source of funds out of which investments were made remained the same in AY 2007-08 to 2011-12 and in AY 1991-92 to 1999-2000 decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court [2010 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT]. Therefore, whether the source of funds were Assessee’s own funds or out of liability was not subject matter of the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the decision cited by the learned DR. To this extent the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumukur Merchants Souharda Co-operative Ltd. [2015 (2) TMI 995 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] still holds good. - Hence, on this aspect, the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gulbarga, relating to asst. years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. There is a delay of 4 days in filing appeal for AY 2013-14 which has been explained as owing to confusion in reckoning the date of receipt of order of CIT(A). The delay is not inordinate and the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal is accepted as reasonable and genuine. The delay in filing the appeal is accordingly condoned. 3. One common issue involved in both these appeals are with regard to the claim for deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) which was denied by the Revenue authorities. The assessee which is a co-operative society claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) or 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on a sum of ₹ 21,58,239/- in asst. year 2013-14 and & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. ITO 230 taxman 309 (Karn) wherein the Hon ble Karnataka High Court considered the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of The Totgar s Co ITA operative Sales Society (supra) and held that interest income in respect of temporary parking of own surplus funds not immediately required is eligible for deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The learned DR relied on a subsequent decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. 395 ITR 611 (Karn.). 6. We have carefully gone through the judgment relied by the learned DR. The facts of the case before the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the decision cited by the learned DR was that the Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d therefore the provisions of Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act was not applicable to such interest income. It is thus clear that the source of funds out of which investments were made remained the same in AY 2007-08 to 2011-12 and in AY 1991-92 to 1999-2000 decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court. Therefore, whether the source of funds were Assessee s own funds or out of liability was not subject matter of the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the decision cited by the learned DR. To this extent the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumukur Merchants Souharda Co-operative Ltd. (supra) still holds good. Hence, on this aspect, the issue should be restored back to the AO for a fresh decision after examining th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
