9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short). 2. As the facts in all these appeals are common, we proceed to pass a consolidated order for the impugned issue by taking A.Y. 2008-09 as the lead case. 3. The brief are that the assessee is a co-operative credit society whose primary function is to advance loans to the members. The assessee filed its return of income dated 10.09.2008, declaring the total income of Rs.Nil. The assessee's case was processed u/s.144 r.w.s. 254 of the Act and assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act was passed on 29.12.2010 by assessing the total income at Rs.Nil, after granting deduction u/s.80P of the Act. 4. Subsequent to this, proceeding u/s.263 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses against a commission received from MSEDCL as per the order of the ld. CIT(A). 7. The assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order and the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said addition after allowing 50% of the expenses against the impugned commission received on the ground that the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim before the ld. CIT(A) even in the second round of appeal. 8. Aggrieved by this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. During the appellate proceedings, the ld. Authorized Representative (AR for short) for the assessee represented that the ground no. 1 of appeal challenging the reopening u/s. 147 of the Act was not be pressed by the assessee and hence ground no. 1 in ITA No. 1712/Mum/2021 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arning commission expenditure. The A.O. in the original assessment has disallowed the entire claim of expenses and in the subsequent proceeding, the ld. CIT(A) has disallowed only 50% of the expenses claimed by the assessee. Though the Revenue has objected that the assessee is not entitled for deduction 80P of the Act, the Tribunal in the earlier year has allowed the claim of the assessee u/s. 80P of the Act and had remanded only to verify that the impugned expenses claimed by the assessee pertained to the earning of the commission income. It is evident that the actual dispute in these appeals does not pertain to the deduction u/s.80P of the Act rather, restricted only to the expenses whether it was incurred wholly and exclusively for earni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee in earning the impugned commission received from MSEDCL. The assessee has failed to prove that the said expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning the commission income. 16. From the above, we find no merit in the grounds raised by the assessee. Hence, ground nos. 2 & 3 are dismissed. 17. Ground nos. 1 & 3 in ITA Nos. 1723 and 1724/Mum/2021 are on identical facts except for variation in the quantum. Hence, the above finding applies mutatis mutandis for these grounds in ITA Nos. 1723 and 1724/Mum/2021. Hence, ground nos. 1 & 3 are dismissed. 18. Ground no. 2 in ITA Nos. 1723 & 1724/Mum/2021 pertains to the claim of expenses against the following heads: a) Sale of loan application form Rs.102679/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
