TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 1321
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred cross objections in this appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an approved housing finance company engaged in the business of providing housing loans to individuals and body corporate for construction, purchase and upgradation of houses. For the assessment year 2014-15, they filed their return of income on 29.11.2014 declaring an income of Rs.1,43,38,89,780/- and revised the same on 29.03.2016 declaring income of Rs.1,45,07,34,980/-. Income of the assessee was, however, determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.1,50,83,94,920/-, after making addition of Rs.1,88,65,937/- under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") on account of the amount transferred to special reserve and Rs.3,87,94,000/- u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unjab National Bank and is engaged in the business of retail lending and also offers long term finance for construction of homes. The assessee the business income of Rs. 876230348/- before deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act. Subsequently, assessee claimed deduction stating that Rs. 2817156893/- was on account of total interest on housing loans and out of it Rs. 1767869838/- was on account of interest on long term housing loan. Thus assessee stated that 62.75% in on account of interest on long term housing loan and worked out applying that percentage on the total business income calculated a sum of Rs. 549834543/- pertaining to long term housing loan and computed deduction @20% of Rs. 10.99 crores as deduction. The Id Assessing Officer cha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(A) that no dividend was earned by the assessee on the investment of Rs.79261.48 lakhs appearing as opening balance as on 01.04.2013 and investment of Rs.75914.59 lakhs appearing as closing balance considered by the Assessing Officer. Learned CIT(A) followed the binding precedent in the case of Joint Investments (P)Ltd. vs. CIT, 372 ITR 694 and deleted the addition. It is not established before us that the finding of fact by the ld. CIT(A) is in any way wrong. We, therefore, are of the opinion that in view of the binding precedent followed by the ld. CIT(A), findings of CIT(A) cannot be found fault with. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue's appeal is accordingly dismissed. Now coming to the cross-objections in respect of entitlement of the asse....