9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1051X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f interest and dividend earned on the investment / deposits with the other cooperative societies. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. Under the circumstances, in all these appeals with respect to grant of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act is held against the revenue X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er chapter VIA which are available from gross total income as computed in the manner laid down in the Act. It is an undisputed fact that interest and dividend earned by the appellant cooperative society from investment made year to year with other cooperative societies are already credited as income in its profit and loss A/c and in that way, form part of the gross total income not found claimed as exempt income. The learned AO has failed to consider these vital aspects in right and proper perspectives and unwarrantedly applied Rule 8D read with section 14A of the Act. In my considered view, there is no lawful ground to apply Rule BD read with section 14A of the Act in the present case where there is no element of exempt income, but the interest and dividend income made from the years investments in other cooperative societies eligible for deduction u/s 80P (2)(b) of the Act. It is also found from the submissions made by the AR that the appellant society has not claimed the deduction u/s. 80P (2)(a)(i) of the Act but claimed deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act only. The AR has also relied upon several judgments including the recent judgment of ITAT Delhi ACIT vs. Krisak Bharti Coope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fully allowed deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) in the succeeding year I.e. assessment year 201112, 201314. It was also submitted that the Department has lawfully accepted and allowed the deduction claim u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act while passing regular assessment u/s.143(3) dated 07.12.2016 for the assessment year 201415. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is seen that the assessee society had earned income by way of dividend and interest from investment made with other cooperative societies as provided in section 71 of Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act. This investment had been made since long back from the year 1951 1952 to March 2006 out of surplus fund of the society." Thus, the dividend and interest income has not been resulted out of investment made during the year neither by making any direct or indirect expenditure for earning such income. We flnd that the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2006-07, 20708 and 2008-09 in a consolidated order in ITA No.367 & 3386/Ahd/2010 and 1739/Ahd/2011 dated 02.08.2013 as held in para 5 as under: "5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant during the year under consideration. Thus, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) in all the years." 11. In the light of above, it is seen that the issue under consideration is covered by decision of Tribunal in the appellants own case. The Id.AR placed reliance in the case of CIT vs Kribhco [2012] 349 ITR 618 (Del) wherein it was held that no disallowance can be made u/s.14A in respect of income on which deduction is allowed u/s.80P. Section 14A is no applicable in case of special deduction given under chapter VIA. It has been further relied that in the case of Punjab State Federation Cooperative Housing Building Societies Ltd. vs. ITO [1982] 2 ITD 617 (CHD) wherein it was held that interest received on saving bank deposits that another cooperative societies have qualified for deduction as income from investment as contemplated in Section 80)(2)(d) held "Yes". In view of these fats, we are of the considered opinion that the AO has erroneously applied the provisions of section 14A for making disallowance out of income which eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act." 7 The two questions proposed by the Revenue are no longer res integra in view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deduction to be made in computing the total income as per provision of Chapter IVA in section 14A. Undoubtedly, as provided under Chapter VIA while computing the total income of the assessee from his gross total income in accordance with and subject to the provision of this chapter, the deductions specified are permissible. As a resultant effect, the taxable income of the assessee would surely get reduced and yet there is marked difference between the exempted income and the deduction provided under Chapter VIA. We notice that the investment in shares made by the assessee which earned him the dividend was from his own income. Moreover, from the very provision of section 14A, the same would have no application in respect of the income not being taxable on account of deduction under section 80P(2)(d). Both the authorities have rightly held that there is no application of section 14A as far as the deduction under section 80A to 80U under Chapter VIA of the Act are concerned." 9 In view of the aforesaid, no error, not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the Tribunal in passing the impugned order. No interference is warranted. This appeal, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
