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

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) by observing that it can be inferred that whatever activities carried out by the assessee society, the interest earned on Surplus funds invested in bank deposits, is to be treated as Income from Other Sources which is to be assessed under section 56

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN EMPLOYEES CREDIT & THIRFT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the results appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowed the\nclaim u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) in respect of the interest received from co-operative Banks\nfor an amount of Rs.14,33,125/-.Though the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) was\nallowed by the AO in respect of interest income from members of Rs, 14/-. In first\nappeal, the Id. CIT(A) confirmed the action

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

56, read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Income from other\nsources - Chargeable as (Reassessment) - Assessing Officer worked out profit on basis of\ncontract and sub-contract income On account of oversight/mistake, he failed to add\ninterest income shown in books as other income - Subsequently, audit objections were\nraised by audit party Invoking section 147/148, Assessing Officer

THE JEWELLERS ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 2 (15) of the I. T. Act, 1961. Hence, 5 ITA 197/JP/2022 THE JEWELLERS ASSOCIATION VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1 JAIPUR exemption available to the assessee-society u/s 11 and 12 is forfeited. The A.O. thereafter taxed the entire surplus of income over expenditure as worked out by him in assessment order amounting to Rs. 56,54,784/- as taxable

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

56(2)(ix) of the income tax Act 1961.\n5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A)\nhas erred in confirming the action of the learned AO that the assessee accepted\nRs.75,00,000/- as an advance from M/s Jagdish health care P Limited in relation\nto transfer of a capital

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

56(2)(vill) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961.\n8. We have gone through the record and perused the judgment\nof Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of MB Bain Bhai Vs\nITO 70 taxmann 45, Ramabai Vs CIT 181 ITR 400(SC), order of\nthe Delhi Tribunal in the case of Jagmal Singh

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)

disallowance of Rs.2,65,591/- u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF & ESI. AO Pg 3-5 CIT(A) Pg33-37 Facts& Submission:- 1. The AO observed that assessee has deposited the amount of employee’s contribution towards PF amounting to Rs.2,64,292/- and ESI amounting to Rs.1

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)

disallowance of Rs.2,65,591/- u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF & ESI. AO Pg 3-5 CIT(A) Pg33-37 Facts& Submission:- 1. The AO observed that assessee has deposited the amount of employee’s contribution towards PF amounting to Rs.2,64,292/- and ESI amounting to Rs.1

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)

disallowance of Rs.2,65,591/- u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF & ESI. AO Pg 3-5 CIT(A) Pg33-37 Facts& Submission:- 1. The AO observed that assessee has deposited the amount of employee’s contribution towards PF amounting to Rs.2,64,292/- and ESI amounting to Rs.1

MAHENDRA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed or added in income\nof assessee-AO held that it was camouflage just to introduce its own fund through entry\noperator therefore amount was added in income of assessee company as unexplained u/s\n68—CIT(A) confirmed reassessment and addition made by AO of share capital and\nunexplained cash credit—Held, notice u/s 148 could be quashed if ‘belief

ANNU AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. PR.CIT, UDIAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Cuke Annu Agrotech Private Limited, Pr.Cit, S-47/48, S-47/48, Vs. Udaipur. Commercial Shops, Ipia 324005, Rajasthan, India. Pan No.: Aagca 5903 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Mahendra Gargieya(Adv.) & Shri Devang Gargieya (Itp) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15 /09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

56(2)(viib) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.” The same was duly replied vide letter dated ‘Nil’ and dated 12.11.2018 (PB 14-19), on all the queries raised. The assesee provided complete name and PAN No of all the three shareholders. To prove their genuineness, the assesee also submitted copies of ITR acknowledgements (PB 29-40) and the confirmations

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

disallowing claim of deduction u / s 80P(2)(a)(i) as well as under section 80P(2)(d) have been discussed at Para 4 to 4.1 above. It is an undisputed fact that during the year under consideration, the appellant had earned interest income of Rs. from FDRs with the 5,17,43,725/- DEPARTMEN Rajasthan State Co-operative Bank

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

section 143(3)/144 of the Income Tax Act [Here in after referred as “Act” ], by the DCIT(Exemption), Circle, Jaipur. ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 Jodhpur Development Authority 2. Since, the facts of both the cases are identical, we have heard these cases together and passing the order together. The facts and grounds are taken from the folder of Jodhpur

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

section 143(3)/144 of the Income Tax Act [Here in after referred as “Act” ], by the DCIT(Exemption), Circle, Jaipur. ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 Jodhpur Development Authority 2. Since, the facts of both the cases are identical, we have heard these cases together and passing the order together. The facts and grounds are taken from the folder of Jodhpur

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

disallow the same during the assessment proceedings which makes the assessment order erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. Thus, the order passed by the A.O. on 07.12.2017 is considered erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and a show-cause u/s 263 is hereby

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)

disallowed by the Assessing Officer. In view of above discussion, it is clear that the A.O. has not examined the issue of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961 properly and completed the assessment in this case without conducting proper enquiry on the issue of the said deduction.” Show Cause Notice u/s 263 was issued

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

56]\n"....Section 37(1), read with section 201, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nBusiness expenditure - Allowability of (Interest on delayed payment of\nTDS) Assessment year 2015-16 - Assessee paid interest on late\nsubmission of TDS and claimed said interest as deduction - Assessing\nOfficer disallowed said claim on ground that interest paid under section\n201(1A) would be penal

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)

56 of the Act, even then, the assessee-Society is entitled to the benefit of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of such interest income. We find no merit in this submission. Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act cannot be placed at par with Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC, Section 80HHD(3) and West