ITO, Ward 1(2), Nashik V. M/s. Niphad Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Ltd, Nashik

ITA 954/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 95424514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L PATHADE
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 56; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.954/PN/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 ITO, WARD 1(2), NASHIK APPELLANT VS. M/S. NIPHAD NAGARI SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA LTD., UGAON ROAD, NIPHAD, NASHIK PAN: AAFFN6079B RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.L. P ATHADE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NIK HIL PATHAK DATE OF HEARING: 18.02.2014 DATE OF ORDER : 19.02.2014 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-I, [SHORT CI T(A)-I] NASHIK, DATED 12.03.2012 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 ON THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LEARNED CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT, WHEN THE INCOME OF THE SOCIETY ON ACCOUNT OF I NTEREST FROM BANKS OTHER THAN CO-OP BANKS, ARE NOT COVERED BY THE ACTIVITY OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS AND HENCE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)( I) OF THE L.T. ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LEARNED CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO LOCKER RENT INTEREST DEDUCT ION U/S. SOP (2) (A) (I) OF THE ACT, WHEN THE SAME IS NOT CO VERED BY 2 THE ACTIVITY OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS AND HENCE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)( I) OF THE IT. ACT. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALSO DISREGARDED THE FACT THAT TH E CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS REQUIRED TO SATISFY THE CRITER IA FOR AVAILING BENEFIT OF SEC 80P(2)(D) I.E., THE INTERES T INCOME SHOULD BE FROM OTHER CO-OP, SOCIETY, WHEREAS IN THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY'S CASE THE INTEREST INCOME IS FROM OTHER THAN CO-OP BANK WITH REGARD TO INVESTMENTS MADE. 4. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) BE CANCELLED AND T HAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/ALTER/AMEND GROUN DS OF APPEAL. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY I.E . PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. DURING THE YEAR UNDER A PPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED INCOME OF 32,26,433/- AS PER AUDITED PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE SAID INCOME AS INCOME FROM ITS BUSINESS AND HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTI ON U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT OF 32,25,433/- AND DECLARED INCOME OF SOCIETY AT NIL VIDE RETURN FILED ON 30.09.2009. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE INCOME OF ASSESSEES SOCIETY ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME FROM BANK OTHER THAN COOPERATIVE BA NK AND LOCKER RENT ARE NOT COVERED BY SOCIETY OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS AND HENCE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TH EREFORE, ASSESSED THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE AT 39,12,197/- AFTER ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION OF 50,000/- U/S.80P(2)(C). 3. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY WHEREIN, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED AND THE SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. THE L EARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2008-09, WHEREIN, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AS UNDER: 3 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECI SIONS CITED BEFORE US. IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE IS NO D ISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY , I.E. PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITY TO ITS MEMBERS. ACCORDIN G TO THE REVENUE THE INCOME OF THE SOCIETY ON ACCOUNT OF INT EREST FROM BANKS OTHER THAN COOPERATIVE BANKS, INTEREST O N MUTUAL FUNDS, LONG TERM AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF MUTUAL FUNDS ETC. ARE NOT COVERED BY THE ACTIVIT Y OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS AND HENC E NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTAGARS COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. (SUPRA). WE FIND THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST FROM BANKS OTHER THAN COOPERATIVE BANKS, INTEREST ON MUTUAL FUNDS LO NG TERM AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON MUTUAL FUNDS ETC. W HILE DOING SO, HE HELD THAT THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF TOTAGARS COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLIC ABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE SINCE IN THAT CASE THE AM OUNT INVESTED IN SHORT TERM DEPOSITS AND SECURITIES WAS NOT OUT OF INTEREST BEARING DEPOSITS COLLECTED FROM MEMBERS BU T OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF FARMER MEM BERS MARKETED BY THE SOCIETY. FURTHER, THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS CONSIDERED ONLY THE LATTER PART OF SECTION 80P( 2)(A)(I), I.E. INCOME OF A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN PROVIDIN G CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION AND HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE EARLIER PART OF SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) , I.E. INCOME OF A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. 11.1 WE FIND THE AHMEDABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. JAFARI MOMIN VIKAS COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. (SUPRA) AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTAGARS COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. (SUPRA) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : 17. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE EITHER PARTY, PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND ALSO THE CASE LAW ON WHICH THE LEARNED AR HAD RESERVATIO N IN ITS APPLICABLY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSE SSEE'S CASE. 18. IT WAS THE STAND OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) THAT T HE ENTIRE INCOME WAS NOT EXEMPT AND THAT IT WAS TO BE EXAMINED AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS ANY INTEREST INCOM E 4 ON THE SHORT TERM BANK DEPOSITS AND SECURITIES INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THIS SOCIETY WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS EXEMPT. ACCORDING TO THE CIT (A), A SIMILAR ISSUE TO THAT OF THE PRESENT ONE WAS DEALT WITH BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS CO-OP. SALE SOCIETY LTD V. ITO (SUPRA). THE ISSUE B EFORE THE HON'BLE COURT FOR DETERMINATION WAS WHETHER INTEREST INCOME ON SHORT TERM BANK DEPOSITS AND SECURITIES WOULD BE QUALIFIED AS BUSINESS INCOME U/ S 80P (2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. 19. THE ISSUE DEALT WITH BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS (SUPRA) IS EXTRACTED, FOR APPRECIATION OF FACTS, AS UNDER: 'WHAT IS SOUGHT TO BE TAXED UNDER SECTION 56 OF THE ACT IS THE INTEREST INCOME ARISING ON THE SURPLUS INVESTED IN SHORT TERM DEPOSITS AND SECURITIES WHICH SURPLUS WAS NOT REQUIRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES? THE ASSESSEE(S) MARKETS THE PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS WHOSE SALE PROCEEDS AT TIMES WERE RETAINED BY IT. IN THIS CASE, WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE TAX TREATMENT OF SUCH AMOUNT. SINCE THE FUND CREATED BY SUCH BY SUCH RETENTION WAS NOT REQUIRED IMMEDIATELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES, IT WAS INVESTED IN SPECIFIED SECURITIES. THE QUESTION, BEFORE US, IS-WHETHER INTEREST ON SUCH DEPOSITS/SECURITIES, WHICH STRICTLY SPEAKING ACCRUES TO THE MEMBERS' ACCOUNT, COULD BE TAXED AS BUSINESS INCOME UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE ACT? IN OUR VIEW, SUCH INTEREST INCOME WOULD COME IN THE CATEGORY OF 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES', HENCE, SUCH INTEREST INCOME WOULD BE TAXABLE UNDER SECTION 56 OF THE ACT, AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER...' 19.1 HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, ON VERIFICATION OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31.3.2009, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE FIXED DEPOSITS MADE WERE TO MAINTAIN LIQUIDITY AND THAT THERE WAS NO SURPLUS FU NDS WITH THE ASSESSEE AS ATTRIBUTED BY THE REVENUE. HOWEVER, IN REGARD TO THE CASE BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT - '(ON PAGE 286) 7............BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS ARGUED BY THE ASSESSEE(S) THAT IT HAD INVESTED THE FUNDS ON SHORT TERM BASIS AS THE FUNDS WERE NOT REQUIRED IMMEDIATELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND, CONSEQUENTLY, SUCH ACT OF INVESTMENT CONSTITUTED A BUSINESS ACTIVITY BY A 5 PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN; THEREFORE, SUCH INTEREST INCOME WAS LIABLE TO BE TAXED UNDER SECTION 28 AND NOT UNDER SECTION 56 OF THE ACT AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE(S) WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. THE ARGUMENT WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ALSO BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HIGH COURT, HENCE, THESE CIVIL APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE(S).' 19.2 FROM THE ABOVE, IT EMERGES THAT (A) THAT ASSESSEE (ISSUE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT) HAD ADMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT IT HAD INVESTED SURPLUS FUNDS, WHICH WERE NOT IMMEDIATELY REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS, IN SHORT TERM DEPOSITS; (B) THAT THE SURPLUS FUNDS AROSE OUT OF THE AMOUNT RETAINED FROM MARKETING THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF THE MEMBERS; (C) THAT ASSESSEE CARRIED ON TWO ACTIVITIES, NAMELY , (I) ACCEPTANCE OF DEPOSIT AND LENDING BY WAY OF DEPOSITS TO THE MEMBERS; AND (II) MARKETING THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE; AND (D) THAT THE SURPLUS HAD ARISEN EMPHATICALLY FROM MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCES. 19.3 IN THE PRESENT CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ENTIRE FUNDS WERE UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSI NESS AND THERE WERE NO SURPLUS FUNDS. 19.4 WHILE COMPARING THE STATE OF AFFAIRS OF THE P RESENT ASSESSEE WITH THAT ASSESSEE (BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT), THE FOLLOWING CLINCHING DISSIMILARITIES EME RGE, NAMELY: (1) IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ENTIRE FUNDS WERE UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS AND THAT THERE WERE NO SURPLUS FUNDS; - IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS, IT HAD SURPLUS FUNDS, AS ADMITTED BEFORE THE AO, OUT OF RETAINED AMOUNTS ON MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS; (2) IN THE CASE OF PRESENT ASSESSEE, IT DID NOT CARRY OUT ANY ACTIVITY EXCEPT IN PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS AND THAT THE FUNDS WERE 6 OF OPERATIONAL FUNDS. THE ONLY FUND AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE WAS DEPOSITS FROM ITS MEMBERS AND, THUS, THERE WAS NO SURPLUS FUNDS AS SUCH; - IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAD NOT SPELT OUT ANYTHING WITH REGARD TO OPERATIONAL FUNDS; 19.5 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, WE FIND THAT THE RE IS FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSE SSEE NOT A CO-OPERATIVE BANK, BUT ITS NATURE OF BUSINESS WAS COUPLED WITH BANKING WITH ITS MEMBERS, AS IT ACCEPTS DEPOSITS FROM AND LENDS THE SAME TO ITS MEMBERS. TO MEET ANY EVENTUALITY, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN SOME LIQUID FUNDS. THAT WAS WH Y, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD INVEST ED IN SHORT-TERM DEPOSITS. FURTHERMORE, THE ASSESSEE H AD MAINTAINED OVERDRAFT FACILITY WITH DENA BANK AND TH E BALANCE AS AT 31.3.2009 WAS RS.13,69,955/- [SOURCE: BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AVAILABLE ON RECORD] 19.6 IN OVERALL CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE ASPECTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS CO-OP SALE SOCIETY LTD (SUPRA) CANNOT IN ANY WAY COME TO THE RESCUE OF EITHER THE LD. CIT (A) OR THE REVENUE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE FIRM VIEW THAT TH E LEARNED CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN COMING TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE SUM OF RS.9,40,639/- WAS TO BE TAXED U/S 56 OF THE ACT. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 19.7 BEFORE PARTING WITH, WE WOULD, WITH DUE REGAR DS, LIKE TO RECORD THAT THE RULING OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MANEKBANG CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD REPORTED IN (2012) 22 TAXMANN.COM 220(GUJ) HAS BEEN KEPT IN VIEW WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE. 11.2 WE FIND THE COCHIN BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF MUTTOM SERVICE COOPERATIVE APLAPPUZHA BANK LTD. VS. ITO (SUPRA) AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF HONB LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTAGARS COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. (SUPRA) AND VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS HA S OBSERVED AS UNDER : 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORD ER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. NO DOUBT, THE LATEST JUDGME NT IN TOTGAR'S CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD VS ITO 7 (SUPRA), THE APEX COURT FOUND THAT THE DEPOSIT OF SURPLUS FUNDS BY THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS NOT EL IGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2). IN THE CASE BEFORE THE AP EX COURT IN TOTGAR'S CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD VS ITO (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY WAS TO PROVIDE CREDIT FACILITY TO ITS MEMBERS AND MARKET T HE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKING. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN TOTG AR'S CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLIC ABLE IN RESPECT OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY WHOSE BUSINE SS IS BANKING. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED FUND S IN STATE PROMOTED TREASURY SMALL SAVINGS FIXED DEPO SIT SCHEME. SINCE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA HAS WITHDRAWN INDIA VIKAS PATRA, AS A SMALL SAVINGS INSTRUMENT, FUNDS INVESTED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BANK IS ONE OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE BANKING AS PER THE BANKING REGULATION ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE CO-OPERATIVE SOC IETY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKING THE INVESTMENT IN THE STATE PROMOTED TREASURY SMALL SAVINGS FIXED DEPOSIT CERTIFICATE SCHEME IS A BANKING ACTIVITY, THEREFORE , THE INTEREST ACCRUED ON SUCH INVESTMENT HAS TO BE TREAT ED AS BUSINESS INCOME IN THE COURSE OF ITS BANKING ACTIVITY. ONCE IT IS A BUSINESS INCOME, THE ASSESSE E IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)((A)(I). THEREFORE , THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE LARGER BENCH OF THE APEX COURT IN KARNATAKA STATE C O- OPERATIVE APEX BANK (SUPRA) IS APPLICABLE TO THE FA CTS OF THIS CASE. BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMEN T OF THE APEX COURT IN KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK (SUPRA), THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(A) IS UPHELD. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 11.3 IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE SOCIETY IS A CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY AUTHORI SED BY THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES FOR ACCEPTING DE POSITS AND LENDING MONEY TO ITS MEMBERS AS PER LICENSE GRANTED BY THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND THE MAIN OBJ ECT OF THE SOCIETY IS TO PROVIDE CREDIT FACILITY TO MEMBERS WH O CAN BE ANY PERSON OF THE SOCIETY. WE FIND THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MAHAVIR NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD. REPORTED IN 74 TTJ 793 (PUNE) HAS HELD THAT THE CREDIT SOCIETY WHICH IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINES S OF BANKING ACTIVITY AND PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITY TO I TS MEMBERS IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I). IN VIE W OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE AHMED ABAD 8 BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AND COCHIN BENCH OF THE TRIBU NAL WHICH IN TURN HAVE CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTAGARS COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. (SUPRA) WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE OR DER OF THE LD.CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 4. NOTHING CONTRARY WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) W HO HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF ACT. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE DAY 19 TH OF FEBRUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 19 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 GCVSR COPY TO:- 1) DEPARTMENT 2) ASSESSEE 3) THE CIT(A)-I, NASHIK 4) THE CIT-I, NASHIK 5) THE DR, A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE. 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, I.T.A.T., PUNE