9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee has rightly claimed the amount as investment depreciation loss instead of the entire amount CIT(A) has verified the working submitted by the assessee before him during appellate proceeding and after analyzing the same has allowed the claim. These facts are remained as uncontroverted before us by the Revenue. In view of this matter, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, same is upheld. Accordingly, this ground of Revenue is therefore, dismissed. - ITA No.710/SRT/2018 - - - Dated:- 14-7-2021 - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member And Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri S.T. Bidari, CIT-DR For the Respondent : Shri Hiren R. Vepari, CA ORDER U/S 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- 1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 Surat dated 17.08.2018 for assessment year (AY) 2014-15. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIST(A) has justified in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of payment of Education Fun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1949 leading which is the main activity predominantly to the members of the co-operative bank. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amount of ₹ 3 lakhs under the head payment to education fund on the ground that this amount is estimated provision towards fund created as per section 69 of Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act and it has not been spent during the year under consideration. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A) 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 AY 2007-08 dated 23.08.2013 in ITA No.3242/Ahd/2010, wherein the Tribunal followed the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mehsana District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., 258 IDTR 780 (Guj), such disallowance were deleted.Aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the order of Assessing Officer. 3. On the other hand the Ld. Counsel of the assessee supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the issue is covered by aforesaid decision of Tribunal. We have considered the rival submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment year 2009-10 wherein the Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 17.09.2012 has deleted the addition in appellant s own case. Further, the ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of assessee in ITA No.2791/Ahd/2012 dated 23.08.22013 has confirmed the findings of Ld.CIT(A) while dismissing the Revenue s appeal. Further similar addition was deleted by Ld. CIT(A) in assessment year 2011-12 vide order dated 20.04.2015 in assessee s own case. The Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved thereby the Revenue filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 7. We have heard the submission of both the parties and has gone through the orders of the authorities below. The Ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of the assessing officer. 8. On the contrary the Ld. AR for the assessee rely on the order of Ld. CIT(A) and submits that this issue is also covered against the Revenue by the order of Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and in 2013-14 in ITA No. 292/SRT/2017 and in The Surat National Co-operative Bank Ltd. in ITA No.2793/Ahd/2012 dated 23.08.2013. 9. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the orders o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sted to allow the deduction. 10. After taking into consideration the submission of the assessee, ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing as under:- 3.3 I have considered the facts on the issue. This issue has been discussed by my predecessor in detail while deciding the appeal for AY 2008-09. Taking into consideration the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Daskro Taluka Co-op Sale Union Ltd., 126 ITR 413, learned CIT(Appeals) has decided the issue as under:- I have duly considered the judgment of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case Taluka Co-op. Sale Union Ltd., (126 ITR 413) where expenditure incurred for purchase of articles for presentation only to its members for keeping alive good image among members and for generating goodwill and ensuring continuity of business with member societies was geld to be expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The facts of the appellant s case, in so far as the above decision is concerned, differ only to the extent that in the relied upon case the household stainless steel utensils were distributed to the members of the said Co-op. society, whereas the bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter taking into consideration the submission of the assesse, ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition by observing as under:- 3.3 I have considered the facts on the issue, basis of addition made by AO and submissions of appellant. The AOP has wrongly concluded that the appellant did not prove that whatever the amount set aside by it, constitutes 20% of profits derived from the eligible business. All the relevant details are present in the P L account only and AO himself could have computed the 20% of profit derived from the eligible business. The appellant has again furnished all the required details and worked out the profit amounting to 250.44 lacs, 20% of profit thereof is ₹ 50.09 lacs amount credited to special reserve is ₹ 50,.09,000/- which is 20% of the income from housing loans and SSI long term loans. This working has not been challenge by AO. It is therefore, held that the appellant has claimed expenses under this head as per provisions of section 36(1)(viii) which are allowable to him. In the result, appeal on this ground is allowed. Since, the above finding of the Ld. CIT(A) remained uncontroverted at the time of hearing before us, we feel no need to i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 1,21,88,023/- (shown in schedule 17 of provisions contingencies). This market to make loss was reduced to ₹ 19,93,840/- in AY 2013-14 and after reducing the outstanding loss of ₹ 19,93,840/- from investment depreciation of ₹ 1,21,88,023/- claimed in earlier year, the assessee was required to pay tax on ₹ 1,01,94,183/- i.e. [1,21,888,023 19,93,840] only being eligible profit for taxation and therefore, the assessee has rightly claimed the amount of ₹ 1,48,05,817/- as investment depreciation loss instead of the entire amount of ₹ 2,50,00,000/-.Thus, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has verified the working submitted by the assessee before him during appellate proceeding and after analyzing the same has allowed the claim. These facts are remained as uncontroverted before us by the Revenue. In view of this matter, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, same is upheld. Accordingly, this ground of Revenue is therefore, dismissed. 14. Considering the consistent decisions of the Tribunal in assessee s own case on similar grounds of appeal, we do not find any merit in the ground of appeal raised by the revenue, thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
