Income-tax Officer, V. Banganga Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Nashik

ITA 880/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2464 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHEERAJ KUMAR JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: NONEWRITTEN SUBMISSION
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUN E , , !'!! # , $ % BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM / ITA NO. 873/PN/2014 $& ' !(' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 BANGANGA NAGRI SAH. PATSANSTHA LTD., GALA NO. 8/9/10P, SHOPPING CENTER, NEAR S.T. STAND, A/P : OZHAR, TAL.: NIPHAD, NASHIK 422006 PAN : AAAJB0550G ....... / APPELLANT )& / V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), NASHIK / RESPONDENT / ITA NO. 880/PN/2014 $& ' !(' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), NASHIK ....... / APPELLANT )& / V/S. BANGANGA NAGRI SAH. PATSANSTHA LTD., GALA NO. 8/9/10P, SHOPPING CENTER, NEAR S.T. STAND, A/P : OZHAR, TAL.: NIPHAD, NASHIK 422006 PAN : AAAJB0550G / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : N O N E (WRITTEN SUBMISSION) REVENUE BY : SHRI DHEERAJ KUMAR JAIN / DATE OF HEARING : 29-03-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-03-2016 2 ITA NO. 873 & CO NO. 880/PN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 * / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : ITA NO. 873/PN/2014 HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, NASHIK DAT ED 19-02-2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE REVE NUE HAS FILED CROSS APPEAL AGAINST THE SAME ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN ITA NO. 880/PN/2014. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORD S ARE: THE ASSESSEE IS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BANKING BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON 13-02-2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AS NI L. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 18-08-20 10. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED CERTAIN INCOMES (LISTED BELOW) ON WHICH ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 80P OF THE ACT : SR. NO. INCOME AMOUNT 1 INTEREST ` 11,85,266/ - 2 LOCKER RENT ` 11,237/ - 3 AMBULANCE RENT ` 1,40,230/ - 4 MSEB BILL COMMISSION ` 98,870/ - 5 SHOP RENT ` 41,900/ - 6 HEALTH CLUB FEES ` 72,500/ - AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30-12-2011, T HE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIDE IMPU GNED 3 ITA NO. 873 & CO NO. 880/PN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 ORDER ACCEPTED SOME OF THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND GRANTED PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT TO ALLOW DEDUCTIO N OF ` 50,000/- U/S. 80P(2)(C)(II) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD EARLIER GRANTED DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS. AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) NOW, BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS)-I, NASHIK IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TAXING THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF LOCKER RENT, AMBULA NCE RENT, COMMISSION ON COLLECTION OF MSEB BILLS AND HEALTH C LUB FEES UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. 2. ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS)-L, NASHIK IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/ S. 80P IN RESPECT OF LOCKER RENT, AMBULANCE RENT, COMMISSION ON COLLECTION OF MSEB BILLS, HEALTH CLUB FEES AND RENT FROM PROPE RTY. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND OF APPEAL NO, 1 & 2 AND ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS)-I, NASHIK IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE DEDUCTIONS OF EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO AMBULANCE RE NT RECEIVED AT 10% OF GROSS AMBULANCE RENT RECEIVED INSTEAD OF ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED AT RS. 1,74,811/-. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 & 2 AND ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS)-I, NASHIK IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE DEDUCTIONS OF EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO MSEB COMMISS ION AT 10% OF GROSS MSEB COMMISSION INSTEAD OF CALCULATING THE SAME ON THE BASIS OF PROPORTIONATE OF TAXABLE NET PROFIT OF GRO SS RECEIPTS OF MSEB THAT BEARING TO THE GROSS RECEIPTS CREDITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 & 2 AND ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE COMMISSIONER OF 4 ITA NO. 873 & CO NO. 880/PN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 INCOME TAX, (APPEALS)-I, NASHIK IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE DEDUCTIONS OF EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO HEALTH CLUB INCOME RECEIVED AT 10% OF GROSS HEALTH CLUB INCOME RECEIVE D INSTEAD OF ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED AT RS. 43,010/-. 6. ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS)-I, NASHIK IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TAXING THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF RENT OF PROPERTY UN DER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY'. 7. ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS)-I, NASHIK IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN WITHDRAWING THE DEDUCTION GRANTED BY THE AO OF RS. 50,000/- UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(C)(II). 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR ADDITION TO, DELETION, ALT ERATION, MODIFICATION, CHANGE ANY OF THE GROUNDS. 4. NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVE R, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH FAX. THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED HERE-IN-UNDER: 1. THE APPELLANT IS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY CARRYING ON THE BANKING BUSINESS. 2. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER REVIEW W AS FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON 13.02.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT, RS.NIL/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2) OF TH E ACT AT RS.8,48,412. 3. THE FIRST ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT THE AO HAS NOT GRANTED DEDUCTION U/S. 80P IN RESPECT OF FOLLOWING CLASS OF ACTIVITIES (1) LOCKER RENT (2) AMBULANCE RENT (3) COMMISSION ON COLLECTION OF MSEB BILLS (4) HEALTH CLUB THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF A.O. THA T THE APPELLANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80P IN RESPECT O F ABOVE ACTIVITIES 5 ITA NO. 873 & CO NO. 880/PN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 4. THE CIT((A) HAS ALLOWED ONLY 10% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF ABOVE CLASSES OF INCOME FOR EXPENSES AS AGAINST ACTUAL AS PER AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 5. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO DIRECTED TO WITHDRAW THE DED UCTION OF RS.50,000/- GRANTED BY THE A.O. U/S. 80P(2)(C) OF THE ACT. 6. ALL THE ABOVE ISSUES ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF PUNE TRIBUNAL IN THE OWN CASE OF APPELLANT ITA NOS. 1521 & 1522/PN/2015 DATED 10/03/2016 FOR A.Y. 2010-11- & 2011- 12 A. LOCKER RENT : THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S. 80P(2) BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF LOCKER RENT IS ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNA L ON THE BASIS OF DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MEHSANA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OP BANK LTD. VS ITO 251 ITR 522. B. AMBULANCE RENT : IT WAS HELD 'THAT THIS ACTIVITY IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION IX], BOP, HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCT THE EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE RUNNING OF AMBULAN CE AND CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE EXPENSES AT 10% OF THE RECEIPT FROM AMBULANCE ACTIVITY. IT IS FURTHER HELD THAT TH E SURPLUS IF ANY, FROM THIS ACTIVITY WOULD BE ENTITLED TO RELIEF MADE RESIDUARY CLAUSE OF SECTION 80P(2)(C)(II). C. COMMISSION ON MSEB BILL COLLECTION : THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S. 80P(2) BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF COMMISSION FROM M.S.E.B. FOR COLLECTION OF THEIR BILLS IS ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF DECISION OF PUNE TRIBUNAL SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE' OF AHMEDNAGAR DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. VS 110 33 ITD 683 D. SHOP RENT: NOT PRESSED E. HEALTH CLUB FEES : IT WAS HELD THAT THIS ACTIVITY IS NOT ELIGIB LE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80P, HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCT THE EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE RUNNING OF AMBULAN CE AND CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE EXPENSES AT 10FR, OF THE RECEIPT FROM HEALTH CLUB ACTIVITY, F. WITHDRAWAL OF DEDUCTION OF RS. 50,000/- CLAIMED U/S. 80P(2)(C) : IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(C)(II) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES SUCH AS RUNNING OF AMBULANCE, HEALTH CLU B FEE ETC. WHICH ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A) OR 80P(2)(B) OF THE ACT. 6 ITA NO. 873 & CO NO. 880/PN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 A COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WA S GIVEN TO THE LD. DR. 5. SHRI DHEERAJ KUMAR JAIN REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) IN RESPECT OF ISSUES AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL. HOWEVER, THE LD. DR FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUES DECIDED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NOS. 1521 & 1522/PN/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 20 11-12 DECIDED ON 10-03-2016. AS REGARDS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEAL HAVE TAX EFFECT BELOW THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT RECENTLY PRESCRIBED BY THE CB DT CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015, DATED 10-12-2015. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. DR. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DISALLOWIN G DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2) IN RESPECT OF INCOMES EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES : 1) LOCKER RENT 2) AMBULANCE RENT 3) COMMISSION ON COLLECTION OF MSEB BILLS 4) HEALTH CLUB APART FROM THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ASSAILED THE ACTION OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DISALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(C)(II) WHICH WAS EARLIER GRANTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE 7 ITA NO. 873 & CO NO. 880/PN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 OBSERVE THAT ON SIMILAR GROUNDS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AP PEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12 IN ITA NOS. 1 521 & 1522/PN/2015, RESPECTIVELY. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATE D 10-03- 2016 DECIDED THE ISSUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WITH TH E FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CASE LAW CITED. THE SHORT QUE STION BEFORE US IS TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 P OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF INCOME EARNED FROM CERTAIN ALLIED ACTIVITIES VIZ . (I) LOCKER RENT; (II) AMBULANCE RENT; (III) COMMISSION ON COLLECTION OF MS EB BILLS; AND (IV) HEALTH CLUB BY COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY CARRYING ON BANKING BUSINESS. THE ALTERNATE GROUND AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO WARDS AD-HOC ESTIMATION OF EXPENSES IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME @ 10% OF THE GROSS RECEIPT AS AGAINST ACTUAL AND PROPORTIONATE EXPENSE S ATTRIBUTABLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING ON SUCH ALLIED ACTIVITIES. THIS HAS RESULTED IN HIGHER INCIDENCE OF TAXATION OWING TO DENIAL OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P ON SUCH INCOME. WE FIND THAT ELIGIBILITY OF THE ASSESS EE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF LOCKER RENT IN COME IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F MEHSANA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD. (SUPRA). THEREFORE, WE SET -ASIDE THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AND HOLD THAT THE ASSESSE E IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT IN RESPECT O F THIS INCOME. WITH RESPECT TO THE INCOME FROM RUNNING OF AMBULANCE, WH ILE HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIO N 80P(2)(A) OR (B), WE ARE IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE ALTERNATE PLEA OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT THE EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE FOR THE PURPOSE OPERATING SUC H ACTIVITY OUGHT TO HAVE TO BE ALLOWED ON ACTUAL/PROPORTIONATE BASIS. W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN RESTRICTING THE EX PENSES ARTIFICIALLY @ 10% OF THE GROSS INCOME FROM SUCH ACTIVITIES IS NOT SUS TAINABLE IN LAW BEING DEVOID OF OBJECTIVITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ACC ORDINGLY DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE EXPENSES WHICH ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE RU NNING OF AMBULANCE AND DETERMINE THE INCOME FROM THE AFORESAID ACTIVIT Y. THE SURPLUS IF ANY, FROM THIS ACTIVITY WOULD BE ENTITLED TO RELIEF MADE RESIDUARY CLAUSE OF SECTION 80P(2)(C)(II). WE ALSO NOTICE THAT THE INCO ME FROM MSEB COMMISSION IS HELD TO BE BUSINESS ACTIVITY AS PER D ECISION CITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF AHMEDNAGAR DISTRICT CO-OPER ATIVE BANK LTD. (SUPRA) AND OTHER DECISIONS NOTED ABOVE. ACCORDINGL Y, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF UNDER SECTION 80P AS PER LAW. WE ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY FIND MERIT IN THE ALTERNATE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT 8 ITA NO. 873 & CO NO. 880/PN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 PROPORTIONATE EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO EARNING OF S UCH INCOME OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN VIEW OF THE FAIR ADMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, THE FINDING OF THE CIT (A) IN RESPECT OF SHOP RENT INCOME IS SUSTAINED. WITH REGARD TO OTHER INCO ME, NAMELY, HEALTH CLUB FEES, WE ONCE AGAIN HOLD THAT EXPENSES ATTRIBU TABLE TO THE RUNNING OF THE HEALTH CLUB SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSE E WHILE DETERMINING THE INCOME FROM SUCH ACTIVITY ON REASONABLE/PROPORT IONATE BASIS. HOWEVER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)/80P(2)(B) OF THE ACT IN RES PECT OF THIS ACTIVITY. 11. AS REGARDS WITHDRAWAL OF DEDUCTION OF RS.50,000 /- AS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(C), WE F IND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY WHICH IS NOT OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A) OR (B), IN SUCH A SCENARIO, IT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTI ON TO THE EXTENT OF RS.50,000/- AS PER PLAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN WITHDRAWING THE AFORESAID D EDUCTION WITHOUT AFFORDING THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS R EGARD ALSO OFFENDS THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AS WELL AS PRINCIPLES OF NATU RAL JUSTICE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLE D TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(C)(II) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF BUSI NESS ACTIVITIES SUCH AS RUNNING OF AMBULANCE, HEALTH CLUB FEE ETC. WHICH AR E NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A) OR 80P(2)(B) OF T HE ACT. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS, THE ASSESSEE GETS PART RELI EF IN TERMS OF ABOVE. THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BY THE ASSESS EE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUES ALREADY DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. NO MATERIAL HA S BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO CONTROVERT T HE FINDINGS OF CO- ORDINATE BENCH. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND A NY REASON TO TAKE ANY CONTRARY VIEW. THUS, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESET CASE AND ORDER OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE ALLOW THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL, EXCEPT GROUND NO. 6. IN THE WRIT TEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT ISSUE RELATING TO SHOP RENT WHICH IS RAISED IN GROUND N O. 6 OF APPEAL IS NOT PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 6 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 9 ITA NO. 873 & CO NO. 880/PN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY A LLOWED IN THE FORESAID TERMS. ITA NO. 880/PN/2014 (BY THE REVENUE) 8. THE REVENUE HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN APPEAL: 1) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT (A)-I, NASHIK WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTI ON U/ S 80P(2)(A)(I) AMOUNTING TO RS.11,85,266/ - IN RESPECT OF INTEREST EARNED ON FIXED DEPOSITS KEPT WITH NATIONALIZED BANK. 2) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT (A)-I, NASHIK WAS JUSTIFIED IN RELYING ON THE HON'B LE ITAT, PUNE 'B' BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO, WARD 1(4), NASHIK VS NIPH AD NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD. VIDE ITA NO. 1336/PN/2011 - A.Y. 2008-09 DATED 31/07/2013 EVEN THOUGH THE SAID DECISION IS B EING CONTESTED FURTHER IN THE HON. HIGH COURT. 3) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT(A)-I, NASHIK WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE CLAI M OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2) IN RESPECT OF LOCKER RENT RS. 11,237/-, AMBULANCE R ENT RS. 1,40,230/-, MSEB COMMISSION RS. 98,870/ - AND HEALT H CLUB INCOME RS. 72,500/ - AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' AND TO ALLOW AN ADHOC DEDUCTION AT 10% ON IT, AS APPELLANT'S EXPENSES. 4) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT(A)-I, NASHIK WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE CLAI M OF DEDUCTION UL S 80P(2) IN RESPECT OF RENT INCOME OF RS. 41,900/- AS 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY' AND TO ALLOW STATUTORY DEDUCTION OF 30% U /S 24. 5) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A )-I, NASHIK MAY BE PLEASE BE CANCELLED AND THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFI CER MAY PLEASE BE RESTORED. 6) THE APPELLANT PRAYS LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, CLARIFY, A MEND AND OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS AND WHEN THE OCCA SION DEMANDS. 10 ITA NO. 873 & CO NO. 880/PN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 9. THE LD. DR FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN ` 10 LAKHS. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015, DATED 10-12-2015 WHICH HAS E NHANCED THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL TO ` 10,00,000/-, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT. THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING FRESH APPEALS IN AFOREMENTIONED CIRCULAR APPLIES TO THE APPEALS PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR FINAL ADJUDICATION. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. PANDA) ( ! ' / VIKAS AWASTHY) #' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ % #' / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; &# / DATED : 31 ST MARCH, 2016 RK *+,$-.'/'(- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' () / THE CIT(A)-I, NASHIK 4. ' / THE CIT-I, NASHIK 5. !*+ %%,- , ,- , . /01 , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. + 2 34 / GUARD FILE. // ! % // TRUE COPY// #5 / BY ORDER, %6 ,1 / PRIVATE SECRETARY, ,- , / ITAT, PUNE