9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act, in respect of the above sum of Rs. 1,25,31,686/-, rather the assessee has shown the above Rs. 1,25,31,686/-, under the head income from other sources and paid the taxes thereon, hence the question of disallowance does not arise. Based on these facts and circumstances, we delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee. - Shri Pawan Singh, JM And Dr. A.L.Saini, AM For the Assessee : Shri Akshay M. Modi, CA For the Respondent : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR ORDER PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2014-15, is directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [ NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) for short] dated 25.07 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f non-submission of the detailed breakup in respect of claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act to the extent of Rs. 1,11,72,525/- being perverse, arbitrary and mere allegatory, is without jurisdiction, bad in law, in-valid, illegal, unwarranted of facts and therefore, liable to be quashed. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and as well in law, both the lower authorities ought to have appreciated from the past assessment records and the orders of the appellate authorities that the appellant co.operative society is in existence under the status of registered co.operartive society and the income earned by way of dividend and interest was exclusively from investments with co.operative societies, within the meaning and defini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well in law, the learned AO has grievously failed to appreciate in the right, lawful and proper perspectives, the documentary evidences available in the assessment and/or appeal records and the detailed explanations substantiated by the documentary, authentic and cogent evidences submitted during the course of assessment and/or appeal proceedings, while arbitrarily and subjectively relied upon the Toptagar s case contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case but ignoring the judicial pronouncements of the jurisdictional High Court/Tribunals on the same issue of claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act and therefore, the AO s order denying the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act, being patently in violation of Rule of Cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r materials brought on record. The assessee submitted before us copy of acknowledgement of Income Tax Return, and Computation of total Income. However, the return of income filed by the assessee on 26.11.2014 has not been filed before us to verify the various deductions claimed/ not claimed by the assessee. We note that only issue involved in the grounds of appeal of the assessee is that the Assessing Office made addition to the tune of Rs. 1,25,31,686/-assuming that assessee had claimed deduction 80P(2)(d) of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,25,31,686/-. 6. We note that during the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed by the Assessing Officer that Assessee- Society had derived interest income of Rs. 4,42,72,177/-, out of this, Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
