JAMBO CREDIT AND THRIFT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO-6(1),, JAIPUR

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal Feeling Aggrieved By Order Dated 12.06.2024, Passed By Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2018-19, As Thereby The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Has Been Dismissed.

TDS deducted is only from the deposit in the Nationalized bank on which deduction u/s 80P is not allowable. 2.7 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mis Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd Vs ACIT, 84 taxmann. 114 (SC), 2017 held that deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) would be admissible to those co-operative societies which

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

d)alleged cash deposits of ₹70,92,789/-.\nHowever, in the assessment order ultimately passed, no addition on account of such\nalleged deposits was made. Instead, the AO proceeded to disallow deduction u/s 80P\namounting to ₹14,38,852/-, solely on the ground that no return of income had been filed\nand that deductions under Chapter VI-A, including

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

d)alleged cash deposits of ₹70,92,789/-.\nHowever, in the assessment order ultimately passed, no addition on account of such\nalleged deposits was made. Instead, the AO proceeded to disallow deduction u/s 80P\namounting to ₹14,38,852/-, solely on the ground that no return of income had been filed\nand that deductions under Chapter VI-A, including

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

d)alleged cash deposits of ₹70,92,789/-.\nHowever, in the assessment order ultimately passed, no addition on account of such\nalleged deposits was made. Instead, the AO proceeded to disallow deduction u/s 80P\namounting to ₹14,38,852/-, solely on the ground that no return of income had been filed\nand that deductions under Chapter VI-A, including

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

d)alleged cash deposits of ₹70,92,789/-.\nHowever, in the assessment order ultimately passed, no addition on account of such\nalleged deposits was made. Instead, the AO proceeded to disallow deduction u/s 80P\namounting to ₹14,38,852/-, solely on the ground that no return of income had been filed\nand that deductions under Chapter VI-A, including

KRYA VIKRAYA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED DEOLI,DEOLI TONK vs. ITO TONK, TONK

Appeal of the appellant is dismissed and the order of the AO is confirmed

Bench: Him.

d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 135/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 Krya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti cuke The ITO, Vs. Limited Deoli Ward, Tonk Nehru Market, Deoli, Tonk LFkk

A3LOGICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR -1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

80P(2)(d) on the interest income received by the assessee from co-operative bank—He has examined the issue which is evident from the finding recorded in the assessment order—AO has taken a plausible view—There is no lack of enquiry on the part of the AO and he has applied his mind and allowed the claim

THE RAILWAY EMPLOYEE'S CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

80P was allowed by the AO. Thus the interest paid to non-member individual of Rs. 3,44,816/- was considered by the AO while passing the order under section 201 and 201(1A) and determined the short fall of the tax liability of Rs. 34,482/- on which the AO has also computed the interest under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 cuke Income Tax Officer (TDS), Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Ajmer Ajmer LFkk

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 cuke Income Tax Officer (TDS), Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Ajmer Ajmer LFkk

ITO(TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 cuke Income Tax Officer (TDS), Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Ajmer Ajmer LFkk

ITO, KOTA vs. KOTA SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD., KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

TDS claim of Rs. 19,803/- therefore, once the assessee is eligible for the benefit of Section 80P then claim of provisions for bad debt and bad interest cannot be held to be a bogus claim amounting to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income. According, we do not find any error or illegality