TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (2) TMI 1597
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 14,80,41,864/- whereas the basic activity of the assessee is purchase/sale of food grains, transportation, handling, storage, milling etc." (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction u/s 80P(2)(e) of Income-tax Act whereas it has been held that the income of the assessee by way of storage/custody receipt is in nature of business receipt." (iii) It is prayed that the order of ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the AO be restored." 3. We have heard both the parties. The assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2007 returning its total income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... letting out of storage capacity, as till the goods were sold to FCI, goods belonged to the assessee itself and not to the FCI. This being the factual situation, the matter is fully covered by judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surat Venkar Sahakari Sangh and A Venkata Subbarao as reiterated in Udaipur Sahakari Upbhokta. The income of the assessee for storage could not be treated at par with the charges. Questions are answered in favour of Revenue and against the assessee. Accordingly, I.T.A Nos. 157, 157, 159, 664 of 2205, 477 of 2006, 419 of 2007, 275 of 2009 and 246, 251 of 2010 are allowed." 5. At the time of hearing before us, both the parties fairly submitted that the issue was covered in favour of the Department and agains....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee's own case relating to Assessment Year 2004-05 & 2005-06 an the Tribunal vide consolidated order dated 31.10.2008, the issue has been restored back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law by holding as under: The next ground i.e. ground No. 3 is that the learned first assessing authority is not justified in reducing the deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) after deducting 5% expenses which is against the law and has to be compute under the proper head. During arguments, the claim of the assessee is that the assessee claimed deduction on account of dividends received from cooperative societies amounting to ₹ 2,39,42,070/- and the assessee claimed 100% deduction on account of dividend. On questioning by....