CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

4(1) says that assessee can\ngive financial assistance to local authorities, municipalities, Urban improvement trusts\nand such other bodies, while assessee rather than giving is charging them heavily. Thus it\nis clear that:-\n1.\nActivity of taking tender and its receipts, neither fall in donation, contribution,\ngrants or subscription. Thus these receipts are beyond the objects of assessee, thus

INCOME TAX OFFICEER, WARD-2(2), KOTA, RAWATBHATA ROAD vs. HITKARI VIDYALAYA SHAKARI SHIKSHA SAMITI LIMITED, BHATAPARA, KOTA

disallowance.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a cooperative society, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from its investments in other cooperative societies, even if those societies are functioning as cooperative banks. The amendment under Section 80P(4

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), KOTA , RAWATBHATA ROAD vs. HITKARI VIDYALAYA SHAKARI SHIKSHA SAMITI LIMITED, BHATAPARA, KOTA

disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee should not\nmade.\n5.3 The assessee filed a detailed reply in relation to the allowability of\ndeduction claimed u/s. 80P of the Act. The Id. AO considered the reply of\nthe assessee but not found convincing and noted as under :\n“5.1 The provisions of section 80P(4

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

4: Challenges the disallowance of ₹1,95,27,206/- under section 43B\nHowever, the disallowance has been made only because

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

4: Challenges the disallowance of ₹1,95,27,206/- under section 43B\nHowever, the disallowance has been made only because

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

4: Challenges the disallowance of ₹1,95,27,206/- under section 43B\nHowever, the disallowance has been made only because

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

4) (5) As per section 37 of the Act, any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable

SDC CONSTRUCTION,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 1(3), JIAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

4) of the act on11.11.2019during the search and seizure action under section 132 of the income tax act, 1961 in case of M/s Skyway infra projects Pvt Ltd, M/s Hi-Tech Engineers, M/s RPS infra projects Pvt Ltd, M/s Relcon Realty Pvt Ltd, M/s Relcon infra projects Ltd and Shri Deepak Jain on 10.11.2019, Lateron Mr Deepak Jain retracted from

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)

4 that wherein it has been stated that similar disallowance of prior period expenses was made in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2014- 15 which was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) and as the Revenue has not filed any appeal against such disallowances Revenue should remain consistent on their stand as they have not challenged the decision

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)

4 that wherein it has been stated that similar disallowance of prior period expenses was made in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2014- 15 which was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) and as the Revenue has not filed any appeal against such disallowances Revenue should remain consistent on their stand as they have not challenged the decision

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)

4 that wherein it has been stated that similar disallowance of prior period expenses was made in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2014- 15 which was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) and as the Revenue has not filed any appeal against such disallowances Revenue should remain consistent on their stand as they have not challenged the decision

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC,Delhi was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 18,05,65,450/- out of claim u/s 80IA of Rail System due to the adjustment of transfer pricing. 5. That the appellant craves to add, amend, alter, delete

M/S. AJMER ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,AJMER vs. PR.CIT, AJMER

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

section 80(P)(4) is also bad in law. 5. Considering payment of bonus Rs. 13,00,000/- u/sec. 43B for disallowances

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

4, states that it is not necessary for exempt income to\nhave been included in the income of a particular year for the\ndisallowance to be triggered. According to the Learned Standing\nCounsel, the provisions of s.14A are made applicable, in terms of\nsub-section (1) thereof to income 'under the act' and not 'of the year'\nand a disallowance

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

4,19,720/- being the interest capitalized by the assessee was disallowed. Against that disallowance for claim of cost of expenditure the assessee did not prefer any appeal accepted that disallowance. Based on that set of facts as there was initiation of penalty proceeding as per provision of section

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

disallowing the deduction referred to section 80P(4) of the Act. Section 80P(4) reads as under:- (4) The provisions

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)

4) of Section 80- IB as well. It would mean that total deduction under Section 80-IB as well as 80-IC is for a period of 10 years. (Emphasis Supplied) 6.6 In view of the above, it is clear that once the initial assessment year is identified he appellant is to get the deduction under section 801C

RESERVE BANK COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

4 Reserve Bank Coop. Society Ltd.v. ITO by holding that interest income of Rs. 5,17,43,725/- is neither eligible for deduction u / s 80P(2)(a)(i) nor u/s 80P(2)(d) The reasons given by the A.O. for disallowing claim of deduction u / s 80P(2)(a)(i) as well as under section

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2, NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT – 2, JAIPUR, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 1st February 2021 after considering the detailed submissions filed in response to notices issued under section 142(1) of 4