BASUDEBPUR UTTARBARH SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. A.C.I.T., CIR - 27(2) NOW CIR - 27(1), HALDIA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and perused the profit and loss account. It was observed that the assessee had not earned the interest of Rs. 4,86,563/- as calculated by the AO. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was filed belatedly by 323 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay, which was not objected to by the Revenue. The primary issue was an addition representing proportionate interest on investment in excess of capital and reserve surplus.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made by the AO for proportionate interest on investment in excess of capital and reserve surplus is sustainable when the assessee has not earned such interest and is otherwise eligible for deduction.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 24.07.2024, passed by the ld.Addl./JCIT(A)-13, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2015-2016.
The appeal of the assessee is filed belatedly by 323 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. Ld.Sr. DR has also not objected to condone the delay. Considering the prayer of the assessee in the application and the sufficient reasons for delay, I condone the delay of 323 days in filing the appeal and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that the only issue in the assesse’s appeal is regard to the addition representing proportionate interest of investment in excess of the capital and the reserve surplus to the extent of Rs. 56,96,933/-. It was the submission that the interest has been calculated at Rs.4,86,563/- and the addition has been made denying the assessee the benefit of deduction u/s. 80P (2)(a)(i) of the Act. It was the submission that in first place the assessee’s has not owned such an interest, in the second place even if the interest is to be added, the assessee’s is entitled to the deduction proceedings of 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in the respect of said interest. It was primarily submitted that the addition as made by the AO in respect of the proportionate interest may be deleted.
In reply the Ld.Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and the JCIT(A).
I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the profit and loss account of the assessee clearly shows that the assessee has not earned the interest of Rs. 4,86,563/-. The AO has calculated the probable excess investment over and above the capital and reserve surplus and has made the calculation of interest on proportionate basis by saying that the assesse has earned the interest of Rs.32,30,423/- on an investment of Rs.3,78,23,489/-. As it is noticed that the assessee has not earned such interest, the addition made by the AO itself is deleted.
More judgments on Section 80P(2)(a)(i)
- Duddukuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative… vs ITO, Ward - 1, TadepalligudemITA 258/VIZ/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- The Development Multipurpose Credit &… vs ITO Ward 2 (4), Porbandar, GujaratITA 458/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hislop College Employees Cooperative Credit… vs ITO Ward 2(3), NagpurITA 184/NAG/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Jijamata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari… vs ITO Ward -1, BhandraITA 102/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026