Kota Co-operative Marketing Society v. CIT

207 ITR 608High Court1994#11265 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing Kota Co-operative Marketing Society v. CIT

ACIT, Circle - 2, Gorakhpur vs. M/S Seorahi Cooparetive Cane Development Union Ltd., Seorahi

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue in ITA No

ITA 144/VNS/2019[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi09 Jun 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Seorahi Cooperative Cane Income Tax, V. Development Union Ltd. Circle-2, Seorahi, Gorakhpur, U.P. Kushinagar, U.P. Pan:Aabas8968D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: None, written submissions filed by the assesseeFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 80P(2)(a)

…rtgage Bank Ltd Vs. CIT (1975), 100 ITR (AP) The exemption clause in a taxation statute has to be construed strictly and cannot be extended beyond the clear language used in the section it was held in the case of Kota Co-operative Marketing Ltd. Vs CIT (1994) 207 ITR 608,612 (Raj.) 100% deduction could be availed only where the income was derived from the specific activities. The activity which was not so specified could not enjoy the full exemption. Deduction under Section 80P is allowable on the net profit of activity carried out by the society and further setting off of losses of the earlier year u/s 72. In th…

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur vs. M/S. Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are disposed off with above directions

ITA 1243/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2020AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)

Section 12ASection 56Section 80GSection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…ed for earning the taxable as well as exempted income and, therefore, bifurcation made in respect of expenditure cannot be considered to be unjustified. This matter was considered in detail in the case of Kota Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 207 ITR 608 (Raj.), wherein it has been held that if a co-operative society is carrying on business and earning income, part of which is exempted and part of which is not exempted, the profits and gains attributable to the exempted activity has to be arrived at on the basis of the books of account maintained by the assessee. If separate books or separate Ms…

M/S. Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are disposed off with above directions

ITA 1178/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2020AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)

Section 12ASection 56Section 80GSection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

DCIT Cen Cir 5(2), Mumbai vs. Gia Export, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 6350/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6350/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) बिधम/ M/S. Gia Export R.No. 1908, 19Th Floor, Air 70/70A, Laxmi Premises, 1St Vs. India Building, Nariman Floor, Shaikh Memon Street Point, Mumbai-21. Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- 400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagfg3116R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Reepal Tralshawala(Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01.05.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 18.07.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 53, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing Appeal Of The Assessee Without Appreciating That The Decision Of The Itat, Jaipur Bench In The Case Of Dcit Vs. Goenka Diamonds & Jewellers Ltd. In Ita. No.509/Jp/2011 Dtd. 31.01.2012 Has Not Been Accepted By The Department At Jaipur & Appeal To The Hon’Ble Rajasthan

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshawala(AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2

…on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the fact that the Hon’ble Rajsthan High Court decision in the case of Kota Co-operative Mrketing Society Vs. CIT 207 ITR 608 (Raj) has held that the exemption clause in the tax statue, should be construed strictly and cannot be extended beyond the clear language used in the section. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 29.09.2012. Notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act was issued on 07.08.2013 and served upon the assessee. There…

DCIT Cen Cir 5(2), Mumbai vs. Auro Gold Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 6349/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6349/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner Of बिधम/ M/S. Auro Gold Jewellery Income Tax, Central Circle- Pvt. Ltd. 70/70A, Laxmi Vs. 5(2), Room No. 1908, 19Th Premises, 1St Floor, Shaikh Floor, Air India Building Memon Street, Zaveri Bazar, Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. Mumbai-400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacca3860H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Reepal G. Tralshawala (Ar) Revenue By: Mrs. Sunita Billa (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01.05.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 18.07.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing Appeal Of The Assesses Without Appreciating That The Decision Of The 1Tat, Jaipur Bench In The A.Y. 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Reepal G. Tralshawala (AR)For Respondent: Mrs. Sunita Billa (DR)

Section 10ASection 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6349/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner of बिधम/ M/s. Auro Gold Jewellery Income Tax, Central Circle- Pvt. Ltd. 70/70A, Laxmi Vs. 5(2), Room No. 1908, 19th Premises, 1st Floor, Shaikh Floor, Air India Building Memon Street, Zaveri Bazar, Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. Mumbai-400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCA3860H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri Reepal G. Tralshawala (AR) Revenue by: Mrs. Sunita…

DCIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Diamond R Us, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3241/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Br Baskaran & Sh Pawan Singh

Section 10Section 10ASection 143Section 260

…s of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of income tax appeal was justified, in allowing the appeal of the assessee, without appreciating that as per the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court decision in case of Kota Co-operative Marketing Society Versus CIT (207 ITR 608) (Raj), the court had held that exemption clause in the text statue should be construed strictly and cannot be extended beyond the clear language used in the section. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income for relevant assessment year on 27 September 2008, declaring total loss at Rs. 16,75,766/-. In the return of inco…

The Commissioner of Income tax vs. M/s. Nirmala Constructions

ITTA/305/2005HC Telangana21 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

DCIT CC 39, Mumbai vs. Diamond 'R' Us, Mumbai

In the result, CO No. 276/Mum/2014 as well as ITA No

ITA 276/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Srivastava

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 1OSection 263

…the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified, in allowing the appeal of the assessee, as the Ld CIT(A) has failed to appreciate, that as per the Hon'ble Rajasthan HC decision in the case of Kota Co-operative Marketing Society Vs CIT 207 ITR 608 (Raj), the Court had held that the exemption clause in the tax statute, should be construed strictly and cannot be extended beyond the clear language used in the section.” 5. We find that similar issue came up in A.Y. 2006-07 in assessee’s own case wherein following the decision of the ITAT in ITA No. 509/JP/2011 in the case of Goenka Diamond & J…

Diamonds ' R'Us, Mumbai vs. CIT -III, Mumbai

In the result, CO No. 276/Mum/2014 as well as ITA No

ITA 2793/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Srivastava

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 1OSection 263