2019 (1) TMI 1977

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....010-11. 2. The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2.1. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is eligible for deduction U/s. 80(P)(2) of the Act. 2.2 The Learned CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that the assessee bank may not function as a normal scheduled bank. But it functions as a bank specialized in re-finance. The business of banking cannot be narrowly taken to the definition of banking as per the Banking Regulations Act. The assessee bank gets loans from NABARD, State Governments, raises debentures and finance to its members. 2.3 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cription of shares, debentures and other borrowings as per clause-13 of the bye laws, making it clear that the assessee has all characteristics of a bank, and not a primary agricultural credit society. 3. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 3. At the outset, there is a delay of 9 days in filing of the present appeal. The Revenue has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating that the delay had occurred in obtaining the administrative approvals. Thus, the Revenue was prevented by sufficient cause for the delay in filing of the appeal has been caused on account of reasons which a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....since the provision is only contingent and cannot be allowed as a deduction, rejecting the contention of the appellant that the provisions are written off in the books of accounts. Subsequently, the AO passed order u/s.154 dated 30.02.2016 after giving an opportunity to the assessee not allowing the set off of brought forward losses of Rs.41,39,53,482/-. The alternative submission of the Respondent-aassessee that the deduction u/s.80P was not allowed by the AO. 5. Being aggrieved by this Sec.154 order, an appeal was preferred before the Ld.CIT(A) vide impugned order allowed the benefit of deduction u/s.80P placing reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the AY 2009-10. Being aggrieved by this appeal, the R....