TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 873
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assessing Officer are illegal, arbitrary, have been passed in a haste and have ignored basic aspects and facts thus causing undue hardship to the appellant. 2] That the CIT (A) has erred both on facts and law in confirming the addition claimed in respect of storage charges by disallowing deductions claimed under section 8OP(2)(e)of the Income tax Act at ₹ 76818542.The deduction has been disallowed on the ground that similar issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court against the appellant. The addition has been made without considering and discussing the facts of the case completely and overlooking the past history. The addition is thus illegal and deserves to be quashed. It is prayed that the add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing of godowns/warehouses and the true income was from the business activity of the purchase/sale of foodgrains, transportation, handling, storage, milling etc. The assessee had claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(e) of the Act under the head 'income from storage' by bifurcating its receipts between rental income from storage and other activities carried on by the assessee. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had denied the said deduction u/s 80P(2)(e) of the Act to the assessee on the so called income from storage as the assessee was found to be mainly using the said godown/warehouse for its own use. Following the abovesaid parity of reasoning, deduction u/s 80P(2)(e) claimed by the assessee at ₹ 7,68,18,542/- was not allowed to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e claim of u/s 80P(2)(e) of the Act on the alleged storage charges received by the assessee. The Courts held that the assessee was utilizing its storage place for its own business of dealing in foodgrains and as such there was no merit in bifurcating the storage charges and claimed the said deduction u/s 80P(2)(e) of the Act. 10. The ld. AR for the assessee before us has fairly admitted that the issue has been decided against the assessee by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. However, there was second limb to the issue raised in relation to the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(e) of the Act i.e. the godowns at Delhi and Mumbai, which have been hired out to the outsiders and are not being used by the assessee for its own business. W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the present case are identical to the facts arising in assessment year 2008-09 and following the same parity of reasoning, we are of the view that the issue of letting out of godowns at Delhi and Mumbai to outsiders needs to be verified by the AO. Accordingly, we remit this issue of verification of letting out of godowns at Delhi and Mumbai back to the file of AO who in turn shall verify the claim of the assessee and decide the issue in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in assessee's own case and conclude the deduction u/s 80P(2)(e) of the Act on receipts of ₹ 1.21 crores in accordance with law. However, as held by us in paras herein above, the assessee is not entitled to claim of deduc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als) had noted the fact that in the appeal relating to assessment year 2008-09, the issue has been set aside to the file of AO for re-computation of the disallowance as per rule 8D in view of the decision of the Tribunal. Though the CIT(Appeals) accepted the facts being same and the said direction was also given to the AO but the ground of appeal was dismissed by the CIT(Appeals). 16. The assessee is aggrieved by the finding of the CIT(Appeals) in this regard. 17. We find that similar issue of claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act arose before the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA Nos.522/Chd/2008 and cross appeal in ITA No.575/Chd/2008 relating to A.Y. 2004-05 and ITA No. 721/Chd/2008 and cross appeal in ITA No.722/Chd/2....