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)

2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer’s liability is to be paid

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total income in the return It may be noted that under sub-clause (iv) the adjustment can only be made in respect of disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total income in the return It may be noted that under sub-clause (iv) the adjustment can only be made in respect of disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total income in the return It may be noted that under sub-clause (iv) the adjustment can only be made in respect of disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into

OCEAN EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

24(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act is automatic and mandatory. Therefore, the AO has rightly acted in accordance with law while making the addition/disallowance of Rs. 5,28,162/- in the case on hand at the time of processing the return u/s 143(1)(a)(iv) as well

THE AJMER COOPERATIVE THRIFT AND SAVING SOCIETY LIMITED AJMER,AJMER vs. CIT(A), NFAC, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

VI- A, which, in turn, deals with "Deductions in respect of certain Incomes". The heading of Section 80P indicates that the said section deals with deductions in respect of income of cooperative Societies. Section 80P(1), inter aria, states that where the gross total income of a Co- operative Society includes any income from one or more specified activities, then

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hearing.”

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of bad debts but appellant challenged the action of Assessing Officer for application of provision of section 115JB in appeal. In appeal no. 5 Rajasthan Financial Corporation 610/14-15 dated 30.09.2016, CIT(A) has decided this issue in favour of assessee. Against this, department prefer appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

disallowed, contribution to Jaipur National University which has not been held to be application of income in view of violation of section 13(1)(c) and section 13(2)(a) of the Act, and addition to fixed Assets which have not been allowed as application of income. Taking into consideration all these issues in addition to systematic generation of surplus

M/S. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. ADD.CIT. RANGE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

Section 12AA and proviso. 11. If there is any breach of any condition/s then they may cancel the registration, however, they have to follow the procedure. The contention that non communication of changes of purpose will automatically cancel the registration, in our considered opinion, is not a valid argument. However, in view of the specific clause which has been there

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

Section 12AA and proviso. 11. If there is any breach of any condition/s then they may cancel the registration, however, they have to follow the procedure. The contention that non communication of changes of purpose will automatically cancel the registration, in our considered opinion, is not a valid argument. However, in view of the specific clause which has been there

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S RAJASTHAN CRICEKT ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

Section 12AA and proviso. 11. If there is any breach of any condition/s then they may cancel the registration, however, they have to follow the procedure. The contention that non communication of changes of purpose will automatically cancel the registration, in our considered opinion, is not a valid argument. However, in view of the specific clause which has been there

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

Section 10(23C) is to ignore the language of the section and to ignore the tests laid down in Surat Art Silk Cloth case (CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturer's Association [1980] 2 SCC 31) Aditanar case (Aditanar Educational Institution v. CIT [1997] 3 SCC 346) and American Hotel & Lodging Association, Educational Institute v. CBDT

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

Section 10(23C) is to ignore the language of the section and to ignore the tests laid down in Surat Art Silk Cloth case (CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturer's Association [1980] 2 SCC 31) Aditanar case (Aditanar Educational Institution v. CIT [1997] 3 SCC 346) and American Hotel & Lodging Association, Educational Institute v. CBDT

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

Section 10(23C) is to ignore the language of the section and to ignore the tests laid down in Surat Art Silk Cloth case (CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturer's Association [1980] 2 SCC 31) Aditanar case (Aditanar Educational Institution v. CIT [1997] 3 SCC 346) and American Hotel & Lodging Association, Educational Institute v. CBDT

KARNI KEHAR SECURITY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

disallowance made by AO by observing as under:- “4. Observation and decision: 4.1 The CPC Bangalore has been the addition/adjustment of Rs. 5,70,356/- u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that those payments were not made before the due date as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Appellant

GROUP ZERO,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

disallowance made by AO by observing as under:- “4. Observation and decision: 4.1 The CPC Bangalore has been the addition/adjustment of Rs. 5,70,356/- u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that those payments were not made before the due date as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Appellant

DEVI SHANKER,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

disallowance made by AO by observing as under:- “4. Observation and decision: 4.1 The CPC Bangalore has been the addition/adjustment of Rs. 5,70,356/- u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that those payments were not made before the due date as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Appellant

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

24,07,075/- Total Loan 274,30,44,859/- 274,30,44,859/- Investment in Stock and debtors -Sundry Debtors 122,01,11,586/- -Stock in trade 197,93,97,019/- Ms Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., vs. DCIT, Jaipur Total investment in stock 319,95,08,605/- 319,95,08,605/- and debtors Thus, the entire borrowed