DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

80P(2). In view of above, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and thus the ground of the department be dismissed.” Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. The ld. AR of the assessee in support of disallowance for ESI & PF also 9. filed additional written submission and same is reiterated in here in below: Further Submission

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

80P(2). In view of above, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and thus the ground of the department be dismissed.” Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. The ld. AR of the assessee in support of disallowance for ESI & PF also 9. filed additional written submission and same is reiterated in here in below: Further Submission

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

80P(2). In view of above, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and thus the ground of the department be dismissed.” Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. The ld. AR of the assessee in support of disallowance for ESI & PF also 9. filed additional written submission and same is reiterated in here in below: Further Submission

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

80P(2)(d)\r\nof the Act. The assessee's claim of deduction under chapter VIA was not\r\nallowable as per the provision of section 80AC of the Act and thereby the\r\nclaim was not allowed by disallowing the same and thereby it is clear that\r\nno addition was made on the issue upon which the case

CHURU ZILA SAHKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD.,CHURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Section 32 of IT Act and thereby rejecting the alternate claim of the assessee in not allowing depreciation @ 10% amounting to Rs. 4,58,960/- on addition of Rs. 45,89,604/- to building-put in use by the assessee co-operative bank in its day to day work.” 2. Ground No. 1 of the appeal is regarding disallowance

THE RAJASTHAN STATE CO-OP. BANK LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Section 80P(4) inserted by Finance Act, 2006. The assessee in computation of income filed with return of each of assessment year prior to A.Y. 2007-08 put a note which reads as under and also reproduced on page-4 of impugned assessment order:- “The income from banking business is wholly exempt u/s 80P (2)(1) of the Income

M/S GIE JEWELS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

80P) included in Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes"; 28[***] (ii) deduction claimed, if any, under section 10AA29[; and] 29[(iii) deduction claimed, if any, under section 35AD as reduced by the amount of depreciation

RENU KHUNTETA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

80P) included in Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes"; (ii) deduction claimed, if any, under section 10AA; and (iii) deduction claimed, if any, under section 35AD as reduced by the amount of depreciation

SOYALA GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,TONK vs. ITO, TONK, TONK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). Explanation.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment

SHRI MADHOPUR KRAYA VIKRAYA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,SHRIMADHOPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEEM KA THANA, NEEM KA THANA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

80P(a)(iv) to the tune of Rs. 12,00,845/- as against claimed at Rs. 16,72,092/- by the assessee which would result consequential addition to the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the above order of the Assessing Officer, an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was preferred by the assessee. Apropos to the grounds

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

depreciation and investment allowance by preferring\none set of evidence was sustained—ITAT was justified in deleting\npenalty-\n(11) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.\nvs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK & ANR.\nHIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD\n(2022) 113 CCH 0362 AllHC\n(2022) 447 ITR 0218 (All),\nIn short, we hold that the appellant had made a legitimate

OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, we find no substantial question of law being involved in this appeal

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

80P are similar to the provisions of s. 80-I. For arriving at such a view, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also relied on its two earlier decisions in the cases of Distributors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India &Ors. (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 349 : (1985) 155 ITR 201 (SC) and H.H. Sir Rama Varma

SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

80P in order u/s 143(1)(a) - no advance notice issued to the assessee disallowance deleted. 10 Income-tax Officer (Exemption) v.Camellia Educare Trust [2023] 152 taxmann.com 304 (Kolkata - Trib.) Disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 11 for the reason of non compliance of Sec. 139(4A) in order passed u/s 143(1)(a) – without giving prior intimation to the assessee