2018 (3) TMI 1826

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....missioner of Income-tax [Appeals], Davangere, in so far it is against the appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2. The appellant denies itself liable to be assessed over and above the income returned income by the appellant of Rs.NIL/- after claiming eligible deduction under section 80 P [2] of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in law in denying the eligible deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80 P [2] of the Act amounting to Rs. 8,96,580/- under the provisions of section 80 P [2][d] of the Act being the interest earned by the appellant on Deposits made by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nder the facts and circumstances of the case. Further the levy of interest under section 234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. 8. The appellant craves Leave to add, alter, substitute and delete any or all of the grounds of appeal urged above. 9. For the above and other grounds to be urged during the hearing of the appeal the Appellant prays that the appeal be allowed in the interest of equity and justice." 3. This appeal is filed late by the assessee and the delay is of 77 days. The assessee has submitted an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e case of PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society as reported in 395 ITR 611 (Karn) but in the facts of the present case, the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO as reported in 230 Taxman 309 is applicable and therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) should be deleted. As against this the ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT(A). 6. I have considered the rival submissions. I have gone through the judgments of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society(supra) and Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra). I find ....