TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1910
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... allowing the assessee's appeals contesting the orders dated 17/12/2014 giving appeal effect to the appellate order in respect of its' regular assessments under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for the assessment years (AYs) 2008-09 & 2010-11, vide separate orders dated 27.03.2013. 2. The sole issue arising in these appeals by the assessee is whether the Assessing Officer (AO) has correctly given the appeal effect for the two years under reference to the order by the Tribunal, which is a common order dated 17.04.2015 for AYs. 2006-07 to 2008-09, and 2010-11 (in ITA Nos. 27 to 30/Mds/2015). The tribunal per its said order had confirmed that by the first appellate authority, allowing the assessee its claim for deduction u/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess attributable to any one or more of such activities:' The tribunal, in allowing the assessee's appeals, met both the objections raised by the Revenue. The Hon'ble Court, in further appeal, cited several decisions by the tribunal, extracting there-from, as well as from its earlier decision in Veerakeralan Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society (in TCA Nos.735, 755 of 2014 and 460 of 2015 dated 05.07.2016), by which judgment, in its view, the issue/s raised before it by the Revenue was squarely covered against it. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record, giving our careful consideration to the matter. We are completely unable to understand as to what the controversy is about. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....defeats the 'outcome' of the appellate order fails to appreciate that it is this 'outcome' which is itself in dispute. As afore-noted, it is not the AO - as stated by the ld. CIT(A), but the assessee who has to, in case of difference/s, initiate action or take recourse to rectification/correction, pointing out the mistake/error/s attending the Revenue's calculation. In the present case we are at loss to understand as to what that mistake/error is, and which explains our observation to that effect earlier. The impugned order/s, which is identical in both the cases, is therefore unsustainable. The ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate, who appeared on 26.07.2017, also did precious little other than by way of furnishing some l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there-from the following: Less: Interest expenditure 33,71,236 1,01,28,985 Proportionate general expenditure 83,49,702 1,17,20,938 58,92,003 1,60,20,988 ------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- 96,10,351 1,35,97,524 --------------- --------------- While interest expenditure is on the basis of actuals, the general expenses (which figures also match with the accounts) are apportioned on the basis of gross income, i.e., comprising gross interest income and other income, both prior to the general expenses. What, then, one may ask, is wrong with the same a amiss therein? The ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../AY 2010-11). In other words, the claim for deduction (of income from the activities specified in s. 80P(2)) exceeds the income itself. As it, therefore, transpires, the assessee, in the garb of claiming deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i), is seeking deduction qua other, non-eligible income, since already assessed and brought to tax. True, the AO has, while giving appeal affect, apportioned the general expenses on only interest income under reference, i.e., on jewel and other loans falling u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i). That, however, would make no difference to the net assessable (or total) income under the Act as interest income on the other (marketing) division has already been allowed deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(iii) on gross income basis. In fact, this is i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at is, regarded it as not qualifying for deduction. The question of the quantum of deduction or its determination did not arise for consideration. The claim being held valid, he has allowed the same on the basis of the underlying facts and figures. It is only at this stage that he was called upon to, and has, accordingly, allowed deduction, which is to be at the correct amount. We have examined the algorithm of the assessee's working to find it to be in accordance with the fundamental principle of only the net income being assessable and, further, of only the relevant income as included in the GTI being eligible for deduction. Merely because the same works to a figure lower than that claimed by the assessee, is, by itself, no ground for reg....