9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned from its investment with Bank/Co-operative Societies - HELD THAT:- In the present case, own funds to the tune of Rs. 332.41 crores available as per the balance sheet as against, this the investments by way of fixed deposits with Cooperative Banks and Societies was Rs. 68.50 crores only. Thus the said deposits is made out of own non-interest bearing funds. Therefore the disallowance u/s. 80P(2)(d) is unwarranted and liable to be allowed. - ITA No. 3558/Ahd/2015 And C.O. No. 19/Ahd/2016 - - - Dated:- 16-6-2023 - Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Yogesh Shah, A.R. For the Revenue : Ms. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Revenue as against the appellate order dated 14.08.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Vadodara, arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2011-12. The Cross Objection is filed by the Assessee as against the above Revenue appeal. 2. The brief facts of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 31-08-2012,, and that the facts of the case of Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. (Supra) are identical to the facts of the present case. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in deleting addition on account of depreciation claimed on the portion of plant and machinery acquired through grant/subsidy received from NDDB under 70% loan and 30% grant scheme by relying on the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Sun Fiber Optics, ignoring the fact that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court the case of CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. (1994 210 ITR 830, was in the rendered on 14-09-2014, which was much prior to the date of introduction of explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act w.e.f. 01-04- 1999. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in deleting addition on account of depreciation claimed on the portion of plant and machinery acquired through grant/subsidy received from NDDB under 70% loan and 30% grant scheme by relying on the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mahesana District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. vs. C.I.T. without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of the Lower Authorities and prayed to allow the Revenue appeal. 7. We have perused the material available on record and the Paper Books and compilation of Case Laws filed by the assessee. Regarding Ground Nos. 1 2 raised by the Revenue, deletion of addition of Rs. 1.85 crores on account of grant received under Sampoorna Gramin Swarojgar Yogna ( SGSY ) from Government. This issue is covered in favour of the assessee in assessee s own case by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No. 2953/Ahd/2013 dated 19-09-2016 relating to the Assessment Year 2006-07 observing as follows: .8. We observe that assessee being a co-operative society entered into Memoranum of Understanding in respect of the special project for Improving the Socio economic condition of BPL families of Kheda district through Dairying and Animal Husbandry Activities . This agreement was entered into on 11th September, 2004 between the District Rural Development Agency, Nadiad, Kaira District cooperative Milk Producers Union, Anand and the Commissioner, Rural Development, Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar to achieve following objectives:- a) To induct 15,000 high quality milch animals in 7,50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be treated as revenue receipt of the assessee as it was received specifically towards attainment of objectives enumerated in the MOU between the appellant, District Rural Development Agency, Nadiad (DRDA) and Commissioner, Rural Development, Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar and assessee had no authority to use this grant towards its normal business activities. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A). We uphold the same. The ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 7.1. We find that there is no change in the grant received by the assessee for the present Assessment Year 2011-12. Thus, we have no hesitation in following the decision rendered in assessee s own case cited supra and held that the sum of Rs. 1.85 crores on account of grant under SGSY as not revenue receipt. Thus the ground nos. 1 2 raised by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. 8. Regarding Ground Nos. 3, 4 5 raised by the Revenue deleting the depreciation claimed on the portion of plant and machinery acquired through grant/subsidy received from NDDB under 70% loan and 30% grant scheme. The Ld. Counsel submitted that this issue is also covered in favour of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in assessee's own case while dealing with issue of re-opening u/s, 148 for disallowing the deduction of interest observed that AO is conscious about the claim made by the assessee and the position of interest earned on investment, visa- vis interest or commission paid by it, and has been treating the investment income having no relation to the interest paid in as much as it was consistent finding that no interest has been paid on borrowings for earning interest on investment. The same has been reported in 87 Taxman 144. In view of the above, in earlier years i.e. from A.Y. 1986-87 it is consistently accepted by the AO, CIT(A), ITAT and High Court in assessee's own case that assessee has never borrowed the money for making the investment as always assessee has interest free funds more than investment. In A.Y. 91-92, section 80AB has also been considered while allowing the deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. In view of these facts and findings, we are inclined with the findings of the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, both the grounds of appeal of the revenue on this issue stands dismissed. 9.1. In the present case, own funds to the tune of Rs. 332.41 crores available as per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
