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) does

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) shall not apply

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

D. Bhardwaj, CIT\nसुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 06/03/2024\nउदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 03/06/2024\nआदेश/ORDER\nPER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.\nThis appeal filed by the assessee arising out of the order of the\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jaipur dated 30/09/2023 [here in after\nId. CIT(E)] cancelling the registration of the assessee under section 12AB

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

4) of the Act, the claim of the assessee under section 80(P)(2)(d) 18. Another issue that arise for consideration is whether deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) shall be allowed on the gross interest income on FDRs or it should be allowed on the net interest income calculated after deducting the interest expenditure allocable to funds placed

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

4) of the Act, the claim of the assessee under section 80(P)(2)(d) 18. Another issue that arise for consideration is whether deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) shall be allowed on the gross interest income on FDRs or it should be allowed on the net interest income calculated after deducting the interest expenditure allocable to funds placed

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

d) is bad in law. 2 Ajmer Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd, Ajmer Vs. Pr. CIT, Ajmer 4. Considering the society as covered by provision of section 80(P)(4) is also bad in law. 5. Considering payment of bonus Rs. 13,00,000/- u/sec. 43B for disallowances

SMT. RENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

disallowed the deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act stating that the Appellant have deposited the amount under Capital Gains Scheme after the due date of filing return of income and the same was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that while making such addition, the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) have not appreciated

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 27.12.2017. The AO while passing the penalty 3 ITA Nos. 1373(4)-18/JP/2018 Smt. Jyoti Agrawal, Kota. order dated 27st June, 2018 has levied the penalty under section 271AAB

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 27.12.2017. The AO while passing the penalty order dated 27th June, 2018 has 3 ITA Nos. 1384(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Indira Agrawal, Kota. levied the penalty under section 271AAB

SONU AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

d) concluding that on the basis of material available on record, the case of the assessee is a fit case for issuance of notice under section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 for the AY 2016-17. Consequently, notice dated 26.07.2022 under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee after obtaining prior approval

SHRI KESHORAIPATAN SAHKARI SUGAR MILLS LIMITED,KOTA vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 80(P)(2)(d) are not applicable in this case. Consequently, deduction u/s. 80(P)(2)(d) of the Act is not allowable to the assessee. The PCIT based on these observation stated that the deduction of Rs. 3,02,09,525/- was required to be disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee

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)

d) of the IT Act, 1961 and thereby allowing relief to the extent of Rs. 4,33,45,363/-. 4. Ground the appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the return in this case was filed

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)

d) of the IT Act, 1961 and thereby allowing relief to the extent of Rs. 4,33,45,363/-. 4. Ground the appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the return in this case was filed

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)

d) of the IT Act, 1961 and thereby allowing relief to the extent of Rs. 4,33,45,363/-. 4. Ground the appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the return in this case was filed

RAWAT BAL VIDHA NIKETAN SAMITTEE,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

d) of the Act read with section 13(2)(c) and section\n13(3) of the Act. Following specific instances have been found, viz:- a. As per reply\ndated 15.2.2021,the trust has paid salary of Rs. 15,18,000/- to ShBachan\nSinghRawat, Rs, 12,40,800/- to SmtNirmalaRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to\nNarendraRawat

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

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

4. Whether Ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding advance of Rs.1,62,86,091/- given to other trust cannot be treated as investment or deposit. While assessee trust failed to kept excess fund in the mode prescribed u/s 11(5), which is the violation of section 13(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act. 5. Whether

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 13(1)(d) is not applicable to the assessee and exemption on whole income should not be disallowed to appellant.’’ 3.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record including the case laws. The Bench noted that

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

4) of s. 54 shows that the assessee has to utilize the amount for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under s. 139. There is no mention of any sub-section of s. 139. Hence, one cannot interpret that s. 139 mentioned should be read