9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rative Societies Act and it has not been spent during the year under consideration. 4. In appeal, the CIT(A) has deleted this disallowance by following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Surat National Co-Operative Bank Ltd. for A.Y. 2007-08 dated 23.08.2013 in I.T.A.No.3242/Ahd/2010 wherein following the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mehsana District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. 258 ITR 780 (Gujarat), such disallowance were deleted. 5. Being aggrieved the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. Sr. D.R. relied on the order of the AO whereas the learned counsel for the assessee supported the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the issue is covered by aforesaid decision of Tribunal. 6. We have considered the facts and found that the issue is covered against the Revenue by the decision of Tribunal in the case of Surat in ITA No.3242/Ahd/2010 for A.YL. 2007-08 dated 23.08.2013 wherein para 16 this Tribunal has observed as under: "16. At the time of hearing before us, the learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and drawing our attention to paper book page 45 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Ginning & Pressing Society vs. CIT 199 ITR 17 [1993] 69 taxmann.com 0304 (Guj). 11. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed this appeal before Tribunal. The ld. Sr.D.R. relied on the order of the AO but could not bring anything contrary to the finding of the ld. CIT (A). 12. Au contraire, the learned counsel for the assessee supported the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the issue is covered by aforesaid decision of Tribunal. 13. We have considered the facts and found that the issue is covered against the Revenue by the decision of Tribunal in the case of in ITA No.3242/Ahd/2010 for A.Y. 2007-08 dated 23.08.2013 wherein the Tribunal has allowed the expenditure by holding that the assessee had to maintain good relations with the members and thus the expenditure incurred is towards the welfare of the members and same is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Karjan Co-operative Cotton Sales Ginning & Pressing Society vs. CIT 199 ITR 17 [1993] 69 taxmann.com 0304(Guj). In view of this matter, respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench as mentioned above, this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 14. Ground No.3 relates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Daskroi Taluka Co-operative & Sales Union Ltd. reported in 126 ITR 413. The explanation of assessee was not accepted by AO on the ground that such expenses appeared to be an altruistic and philanthropic urge which should have been satisfied by assessee at its own cost not at the cost of public exchequer or other tax payers and such expenses also prove that assessee wants to increase the expenditure on some pretext or other thereby reducing his tax liability. With this conclusion; AO disallowed the gift expenses of Rs. 17,10,728/- and added to the income of assessee. 9. Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee's submission was as follows "3.2 During the appellate proceedings, it was submitted by appellant that the assessee bank has given gift to its members on the occasion of completion of 35 years by the bank which was spread into two years. Part of total amount paid was disallowed by AO in the A. Y. 2008-09, which was allowed by CIT(Appeals)-II by his order dated 06.05.2011. It was further submitted that the Cooperative movement was primarily for the benefit of the consumers and its members and this aspect has been discussed in detail in the Gujarat High Court Judgment referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red the facts and rival submission. We find that the issue has been duly covered by the decision of Tribunal in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2009-10 dtd.23.08.2013 wherein, the Hon'ble Tribunal observed as under : "9. Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee's submission was as follows : "3.2 During the appellate proceedings, it was explained by appellant that during the assessment proceedings complete details of working out the 20% of profits derived, were furnished to the AO but the same were ignored "As regards Ground No.II about deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii) for Rs. 50,09,000/- the details have been furnished as per para (2) of letter dated 06.08.2011 to the Assessing Officer in course of assessment proceedings. This reproduced . Total interest Income on advances 1640.11 Interest income on Housing (86.41 lacs ) and SSI Term Loan (530.52 lacs) 616.93 Banking operation income. 665.79 So taxable income from Housing loan and SSI long term loan is 250.44 20% special provision on above. 50.09 Branch wise particulars of interest on housing and machinery loan are furnished". 10.After taking into consideration the submission of the assessee, ld. CIT(A) deleted this additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rking for investment depreciation nor provided any supporting evidence and nature of depreciation. Further, the assessee has not proved that provision made was added back in computation of income. 24. In appeal, before CIT (A), the assessee has provided detailed working of investment depreciation by which it was submitted that as per Schedule 17 to Accounts for the year ended 31.03.2013 , the bank wrote back Rs. 2,86,27,844/- as excess provision for investment depreciation which included ad-hoc amount of depreciation of Rs. 2,50,00,000 from provision for investment depreciation. As per the working filed, the appellant was required to write back provision of Rs. 1,21,88,023/- made in A.Y. 2012-13 and claim loss of Rs. 19,93,840/- which remained as on 31.03.2013. Therefore, in effect Rs. 1,21,88,023/- has already been claimed and after reducing remaining amount of Rs. 19,93,840/-, the amount of Rs. 1,01,94,183/- has to be offered for tax. Since the amount of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- has been written back, hence, same has to be reduced from profit and Rs. 1,01,94,183/- increased in profit as per clause (c) of working filed before CIT (A). Accordingly, the difference between the two figur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
