9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve Bank Ltd. [ 2021 (1) TMI 488 - SUPREME COURT] is not considered by the NFAC insofar as the deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) is concerned. In a subsequent decision in case of Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. KSCARDB [ 2023 (9) TMI 761 - SUPREME COURT] , Hon ble Supreme Court has analysed applicability of section 80P(2)(d) deduction in great detail with regard to interest / dividend income earned from deposits. The NFAC/CIT(A) is directed to consider the claims of the assessee in the light of the aforestated decisions by Hon ble Supreme Court. In the interest of justice, we remand these appeals back to NFAC / CIT(A) for read judication on merits. Appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CDCC Bank Rs. 4,02,895/- aggregating to Rs. 20,03,167/- to the returned income u/s. 56 of the Act and holding that the said income was not liable for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. 4. The appellant being a PACS, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate authority was right in upholding the decision of the Respondent that investment income of Rs. 19,90,390/- derived by the appellant from SCDCC Bank [Interest on investments Rs. 15,87,495/- + Dividend Rs. 4,02,895/-] was liable to be taxed and not eligible for deduction even when the decision runs contrary to the judgements of: (a) Hon. High Court of Kerala dated 01-11-2021 in ITA No. 142/2019 Principal Commissioner of Income tax, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Vilappil Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee had filed its return of income declaring a gross total Income of Rs. 67,98,255/- and claiming full deduction u/s 80P of the Act. In the assessment proceedings, though it was submitted by the assessee, due to oversight, it had omitted to include the Interest on Investments and Dividends in the business profits and instead of claiming deduction for the same u/s 80 P (2) (a) (i) of the Act, it had claimed deduction u/s. 80P (2) (d) of the Act and also u/s. 80P (2) (c) of the Act. However, not accepting the submissions of assessee, the assessment was concluded by the Ld.AO holding that, the declared Business Income of the assessee was ineligible for deduction u/s 80P of the Act, on the ground that the assessee had transacted with nomin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry, the Ld.DR relied on the orders passed by authorities below. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 4. It has been rightly submitted by the Ld.AR that the directions of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Mavilayi Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (supra) is not considered by the NFAC insofar as the deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) is concerned. Further, in a subsequent decision by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. KSCARDB vs. The Assessing Officer, Trivandrum Ors. (supra), Hon ble Supreme Court has analysed applicability of section 80P(2)(d) deduction in great detail with regard to interest / dividend income earne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
