2012 (11) TMI 659

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al was not correctly appreciated and decided by the Tribunal. Relevant portions argued before us as arising from the said miscellaneous petition are reproduced below:- 1. The Appellant filed appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, 'B' Bench, Ahmedabad against of Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Baroda in Appeal No.CAB/IV-A-5/05-06 on the following among other grounds: Ground No.3 Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the investment in Government.Securities as capital assets and not alloweing deduction of income earned on sale of it us/80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Appeal was heard by the Hon'ble Members of ITAT 'B' Bench, Ahmedabad and a common order was passed in respect of ITA No.370 & 371/Ahd/2006 for A.Ys. 2000-01 and 2002-03 (being the app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erred in not treating the income earned on investment with Nationalised Bank as not banking business and treated as not covered for deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 3. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has gravely erred in not treating the income earned on money at call and short notice from DFHI and PNB Gifts as not banking business and treated as not covered for deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 4. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has gravely erred in not following the principle laid down in case of Surat Dist. Co.Op. Bank Ltd. vs. The ITO Ward-2(6) Surat where entire income of a co-operative bank is available as deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Entire income be fully allowed as deduction available....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aced on record] and also by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Surat District Co-op.Bank Ltd. vs. ITO 85 ITD 1 (SB). ...   5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us. We find force in the contention of ld. AR that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Special Bench in the case of Surat District Co-op.Bank Ltd. vs. ITO 85 ITD 1 (SB). Vide aforementioned decision of SB it has bee held as under: "57. I view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the entire income in question viz., interest income on investments in Government Securities, Fixed Deposits, KVPs and IVPs, investments with UTI etc., out of surplus/idle money available fro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CIT vs. Baroda Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd. 280 ITR 282 (Guj.). Paragraph No.3 of the impugned order of the Tribunal clearly referred that ld.AR Mr.M.G.Patel had stated that the issue was covered by CIT vs. Ramanathapuram District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. 255 ITR 423 (SC). Now the contention is that the referred decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court prescribes relief also in respect of capital gain and that was not duly considered by the AO. In our considered opinion, in a situation when a Revenue Officer either do not follow an order of the Supreme Court or do not correctly apply the ratio laid down therein or if do not follow the law laid down therein, then he is the one who has committed the mistake. As far as the Tribunal is conc....