M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

vii) Reliance is placed on the judgement dated 30.10.2017 of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of M/s. Motisons Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No. 481 /JP/2017 for AY 2009-10, wherein the appeal of the revenue on the same issue was dismissed. Further, the above judgement was followed by the Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur

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

RAJASTHAN TRANSMAT PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD 7(2),, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

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

Section 56(2)(vii)(b) were in applicable and it was brought in the statute books only w.e.f 01-04-2013 and thus we do not concur with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the Ground No. 1 of the assessee is allowed. 3.1 In Ground No. 2, the assesee is aggrieved that

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

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

section 132 of the Income Tax act together. The documents related to dissolution of JV of both of them were found from the premises of both the persons. Both of them accepted that the transaction in question was not loan but an accommodation entry against the settlement of dispute. In fact, some of the amounts as per seized paper

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

disallowing the claim made by the Appellant and the addition of Rs\n4,43,36,980- is hereby deleted. These grounds are allowed.\nGround No. 5 is general in nature.\nIn the result, the appeal is allowed.\"\n5. Feeling dissatisfied with the above finding so recorded in the\norder of the Id. CIT(A) the revenue has preferred the present

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

vii) investment or deposit in any public sector company: Provided that where an investment or deposit in any public sector company has been made and such public sector company ceases to be a public sector company,— (A) such investment made in the shares of such company shall be deemed to be an investment made under this clause for a period

SHIKSHA VIBHAG KARMACHARIGAN SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance and subsequent addition made u/s 56 accordingly. In the result, this ground of assessee’s appeal is allowed.” 6.1 As regards the claim u/s 80P(2)(d), we find that the only condition for availing the deduction under this provision is any income by way of interest or dividend derived by the Cooperative society from its investment with

SHIKSHA VIBHAG KARMACHARIGAN SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance and subsequent addition made u/s 56 accordingly. In the result, this ground of assessee’s appeal is allowed.” 6.1 As regards the claim u/s 80P(2)(d), we find that the only condition for availing the deduction under this provision is any income by way of interest or dividend derived by the Cooperative society from its investment with

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

vii). This aspect is also covered by the ITAT order (supra). (PB 552-578). 4.2.2 Exhibition expenses: Similarly the exhibition expenses were incurred inmaking payment to various non-residents outside India on account of the stallbooking in different conferences exhibitions held outside India. Thus, the serviceswere rendered outside India and respective payments were also made outside India. Kindly refer

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.”

disallowed by the AO is confirmed. Ground of appeal is dismissed.” 5. Now the assessee is in further appeal before us. The ld AR of the assessee submitted that in this case the sale consideration was received at Rs. 7,00,000/- cash in each case on 09.02.2013, 11.02.2013 & 12.02.2013. Thus a sum of Rs. 21,00,000/- was received

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

vii) and any other relevant section of the Act. with a direction to the AO to properly examine the identity (typed as entities) 85 creditworthiness of the shareholders/investors and also genuineness of the transactions and also to examine applicability of S. 56(2)(viib) of large share premium and any other relevant section of the Act and also to make

DHANUKA REALTY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

2) (vii b) bringing share premium into income tax net was first time brought on the statute book by the Finance Act, 2012, w.c.f. assessment year 2013-14 and as such this provision was not applicable in the year under appeal i.e. Α.Υ. 2009-10. 4. That the Id. Commissioner (appeals) ought to have decided on merit the ground

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)

56(i)(ccv) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 defines a Primary Cooperative Society Bank as a Cooperative Society. Therefore, a Cooperative Society Bank is impliedly included in the word ‘Co- operative Society’. This view has been taken in the cases of: 4.4 Other supporting case laws on merit: i. The ITAT Raipur Bench in Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit

RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JAIPUR

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

vii) of section 47. (e) "relative" means,- (i) in case of an individual- (A) spouse of the individual; (B) brother or sister of the individual; (C) brother or sister of the spouse of the individual; (D) brother or sister of either of the parents of the individual; Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

vii) of section 47. (e) "relative" means,- (i) in case of an individual- (A) spouse of the individual; (B) brother or sister of the individual; (C) brother or sister of the spouse of the individual; (D) brother or sister of either of the parents of the individual; Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

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. In view of above, Ld. CIT(A), NFAC be directed to allow deduction u/s 80P(2) to the assessee as claimed. 10. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that the assessee being credit co- operative society is eligible to claim the deduction, and thereby

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing certain expenses debited to profit and loss statement of the appellant, being royalty expense, labour, cess, VAT composition tax and entry tax to achieve the said retention percentage. 2.2. Basis the order passed under section 92CA, the AO had completed the assessment under section 143(3) by passing an order dated 11th December 2017 by making total addition amounting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing certain expenses debited to profit and loss statement of the appellant, being royalty expense, labour, cess, VAT composition tax and entry tax to achieve the said retention percentage. 2.2. Basis the order passed under section 92CA, the AO had completed the assessment under section 143(3) by passing an order dated 11th December 2017 by making total addition amounting