TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 544
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Stay Petitions are common in nature, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals in ITA No.57/Coch/2020: 1. It is respectfully submitted that the order of CIT(A) in ITA N0.314/TVM/CIT(A)/TVM/2018-19 dated 16.12.2019 dismissing the appeal for the A.Y. 2014-15 is opposed to law and facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT(A) should have found that the issue as regards claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) is covered in favour of the appellant by a series of decisions relating to the assessments for years prior to A.Y. 2014- 15, not only by orders of appellate tribunal but by other relevant orders of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tribunal's order. The findings are contrary and unsustainable considering the facts of the case. 7. The appellant humbly prays that the grounds before the CIT(A) may be considered as part of the appeal. 3. The facts of the case as narrated in ITA No.57/Coch/2020 are that the assessee filed return of income for AY 2014-15 on 19.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The assessment under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act was completed on 27.12.2016 disallowing the claim under section 8OP of the Act on the income from business and also disallowing deduction under section 80P(2)(d) on the interest income received from Thiruvananthapuram District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere dismissed. 5. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR relied on the grounds raised. 6. The Ld. DR relied on the following case laws in support of the contention that relief not claimed in assessment proceedings cannot be granted by rectification if there were no materials on record to support the claim. 1) Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (100 ITR 347) (All.) 2) Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (161 ITR 159) (SC) 3) Sharda Prasad vs. CIT (100 ITR 373) (All.) 4) Choksi Metal Refinery vs. CIT (107 ITR 63) (Guj.) 5) CIT vs. K.N. Oil Industries (142 ITR 13) (MP) 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find that the order of the CIT(A) is very cryptic The plea of the assessee is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng order. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Thus, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.57/Coch/2020 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 40/Coch/2020: AY 2015-16 8. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. It is respectfully submitted that the dismissal of appeal ITA No.630/TVM/CIT(A)TVM/M/2018-19 dated 16.12.2019 for the asst. year 2015-16 is erroneous in law and unsustainable. 2. The CIT(A) failed to consider that the assessing officer while giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) in ITA No.142/CIT(A)/TVM dated 27.11.2018, passed on 18.12.2018 sustained the addition of Rs. 5,58,61,604/- notwithstanding the direction of the CIT(A) as per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the CIT (A) in ITA No. 142/CIT(A)/TVM/2017-18 dated 27.11.2018 now relied on in the appellate order and decided the issue in favour of the assessee and as such, the dispute as regards the addition of Rs. 5,58,61,604/- stood decided in favour of the assessee by virtue of order in ITA Nos.48 & 49/C/2019 dated 12.3.2019 for the very same asst year of this Hon'ble Tribunal. 9. The facts of the case for the assessment year 2015-16 are that the Assessing Officer disallowed deduction under section 80P(2)(d) on the interest income received from Thiruvananthapuram District Cooperative Bank Ltd in the appeal effect order. Vide appellate order dated 27.11.2018, the Assessing Officer was directed to follow the directions of the ITAT in the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance with the directions given in the appellate order for AY 2015-16, there was no merit in the grounds raised against the same and hence, the same were dismissed. 11. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR relied on the grounds raised. 12. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 13. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find that the order of the CIT(A) is very cryptic The plea of the assessee is that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 80P(2) and 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act, if the assessee is not granted deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the I.T. Act. According to the Ld. AR, this alternative claim of the assessee is to be examined by the CIT(A) by passing a speaking ....