TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court allows Department's appeal on deduction for agricultural cooperative society</h1> <h3>ACIT Circle, Panchkula Versus M/s Haryana State Co-Operative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd</h3> The Department's appeal was allowed by the High Court, overturning the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition and allowing the deduction u/s 80P(2)(e) for an ... - Issues involved: The judgment involves issues related to the deletion of addition by the CIT(A) and the deduction u/s 80P(2)(e) of the Income-tax Act in the Department's appeal, as well as the deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) on dividend and interest income in the Assessee's appeal.Department's Appeal - ITA No. 1081/Chandi/2010:The Department appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of Rs. 14,80,41,864 and the allowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(e). The appellant, an apex cooperative society, procured agricultural commodities for the Government and received income for storage charges. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction u/s 80P(2)(e) based on previous Tribunal orders, but the High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that storing was part of the business activity. Consequently, the Department's appeal was allowed, as the issue was decided in favor of the Department by the High Court.Assessee's Appeal - ITA No. 1095/Chandi/2010:The Assessee appealed regarding the deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) on dividend and interest income. Both parties acknowledged that a similar issue had been addressed by the Tribunal in earlier years. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law. As the issue was identical to previous years and for consistency, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision. The order passed by the CIT(A)/Assessing Officer was set aside, and the appeal filed by the Assessee was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.In conclusion, the Department's appeal was allowed based on the High Court's ruling, while the Assessee's appeal was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication in line with previous Tribunal orders for consistency.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
