Ita/27/2018 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Jila Sahakari Kendriy Bank Maryadit

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHI.T.A. No. 27/2018 1 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Jila Sahakari Kendra Bank Maryadit. Indore, dated : 28.09.2018 Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel for the appellant, Revenue. Heard on the question of admission. O R D E R This appeal has been filed by the Revenue u/s. 260-A ofIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, for short, “the Act”) against theorder dated 14.7.2017 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) in ITA No.324/Ind/2017, whereby the learned ITAT hasupheld the order passed by Commissioner, Income Tax anddismissed the appeal. 2.Facts, in short, are that the respondent/assessee which isa cooperative Bank filed the return declaring total income ofRs.4,92,85,380/- and Rs.5,72,83,280/- for the assessment year2009-2010. The Assessing Officer made additions ofRs.3,08,00,030/- and Rs.2,97,27,581/- respectively, on account ofinterest subsidy paid by the assessee. 3.In an appeal, learned Commissioner, Income Tax(Appeal) noted that the assessee Bank is taking the finance fromNABARD and financing the societies who are financingagriculturists. The assessee is charging interest @ 9% fromsocieties. The societies are giving loan @ 5% to the agriculturists.The societies are required to charge @ 11% from farmers. Thedeficit interest @ 6% is made by NABARD @ 1.5% and the StateGovernment grants @ 4.5%. The loans advanced by the assesseefrom its own funds carry a subsidy which is reimbursed by the Alok/- THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHI.T.A. No. 27/2018 2 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Jila Sahakari Kendra Bank Maryadit. NABARD. The subsidy @ 1.5% for the funds received fromNABARD is required to be borne by the assessee and, therefore,held that the amount of Rs.3,08,00,030/- and Rs.2,97,27,581/- areallowable expenditures and deleted these additions. 4.Learned ITAT considering the fact that the issue involvedin this appeal (ITA No.324/2017) is fully covered by order dated22.3.2017 passed in ITA No.99/Ind/2016 (Assessment Year 2011-12) and relying on the decision dated 22.3.2017, came to theconclusion that the appeal filed by the Revenue has no merit anddismissed the same. 5.Similar issue came up for consideration before this Courtin ITA No.210/2017. Considering the reasonings assigned by us inthe detailed order passed today in ITA No.210/2017, we are of theview that the learned ITAT has not committed any legal error indismissing the appeal of the Revenue. No substantial question oflaw is involved in this appeal. The order passed by us today in ITANo.210/2017 shall apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal also. 6.Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed inlimine. ( P.K. JAISWAL ) JUDGE. ( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE. Digitally signed by Alok Gargav Date: 2018.09.29 16:50:01 +05'30'