9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng effect and, therefore, cannot be termed as a capital expenditure. The assessee is doing no business activities and it is a co-operative housing society where principle of mutuality would apply. We direct the AO to delete this addition from the hands of the assessee. Ground No.1 of the assessee s appeal is allowed. Deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) - funds were invested in nationalized banks i.e. Bank of Maharashtra Oriental Bank of Commerce and not in co-operative bank - HELD THAT:- We have perused the return of income filed by the assessee for the relevant year and it is observed that the claim of deduction u/sec. 80P(2)(d) is not emanating from the return of income, meaning thereby, the assessee has never claimed any deduction u/sec. 80P( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e account without realizing the fact that the said amount is added to the total income in the final computation appellant prays for the deletion of disallowance. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. AO erred in making an ad of Rs. 2,72,502/- being into income earned from non-co-operative banking institutions without realizing the fact that it was part of maintenance fund and your appellant was entitled to settle the deficit arising out of maintenance charges against such interest income. 2. At the outset, it is observed that the present appeal is time barred by 34 days and the assessee had filed condonation petition and an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. We have perused the contents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the income and expenditure account on account of fencing of boundary wall. The assessee-society is an AOP and is a co-operative housing society. It is registered under Co-operative Society Act vide registration No. P.N.A.(1)HSG/(TC) 71014/2002-2003 dated 11/02/2003. The accounts of the society are audited under MCS Act. Audit report is on record. The AO examined the details filed by the assessee and he observed that an expenditure of Rs. 65,000/- had been debited in the income and expenditure account for fencing wall. The AO observed that since it is a capital expenditure, no deduction should be allowed. During the scrutiny proceedings, ld.AR provided no explanation on this and, hence, the same was added to the total income of the assessee- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowance u/sec. 80P(2)(d) was made by the AO saying that this deduction is not allowable to the assessee. We have perused the return of income filed by the assessee for the relevant year and it is observed that the claim of deduction u/sec. 80P(2)(d) is not emanating from the return of income, meaning thereby, the assessee has never claimed any deduction u/sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. As earlier observed, the ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with on the merits of both the additions made by the AO and had simply said that since the issues were debatable, it was not a subject matter of rectification u/sec. 154 and had thus dismissed the appeal of the assessee. But here we find that since the assessee has never claimed deduction u/sec. 80P(2)(d) it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
