SHRI GOVIND NARAIN JOHARI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Although The Second Round Of Assessment Was Completed At The Directions Of Hon’Ble Itat.

2,04,259/- out of certain expenses claimed by applying the arbitrary percentage which is wrong and against the principle of natural justice. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 15,21,765/- made by the ld. AO by disallowing the discount and commission expenses

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

disallow expenditure and the exemption claimed by the assessee. Thus, the exemption was denied on the basis that the assessee was involved into a commercial activity. The ld. CIT(A) concurred the view of the Assessing Officer on the same basis. Before adverting to the rival contentions it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provision of law. The section

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

2)(a) (i) to(vii) of the ITA is covered\nthe whole of the amount of profits and gains of business attributable to any one\nor more of such activities.\"\nThe Apex court in the case of Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT\n[1978] 113 ITR 84 defined the meaning of the word of “attributable to”\nThe

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

Disallowed by Assessing 477863 640219 641273 76116 Officer Deduction granted u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act by 549856 405079 581753 867618 Assessing Officer 8. We have considered the decisions cited by learned advocate for the assessee as well as the revenue. We feel that the decisions cited by the learned advocate for the assessee shall be applicable

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

Disallowed by Assessing 477863 640219 641273 76116 Officer Deduction granted u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act by 549856 405079 581753 867618 Assessing Officer 8. We have considered the decisions cited by learned advocate for the assessee as well as the revenue. We feel that the decisions cited by the learned advocate for the assessee shall be applicable

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.

8. We have heard counsel for the parties. 9. In our considered opinion, the contention which has been raised pursuant to the observations and amendment which is made under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act and proviso which is impressed by the counsel for the department and Section 2(15) of the Act and proviso to Section 12AA which

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.

8. We have heard counsel for the parties. 9. In our considered opinion, the contention which has been raised pursuant to the observations and amendment which is made under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act and proviso which is impressed by the counsel for the department and Section 2(15) of the Act and proviso to Section 12AA which

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.

8. We have heard counsel for the parties. 9. In our considered opinion, the contention which has been raised pursuant to the observations and amendment which is made under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act and proviso which is impressed by the counsel for the department and Section 2(15) of the Act and proviso to Section 12AA which

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

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 deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(i) whereas on the contrary the assessee claimed that the business of the appellant society is to provide credit facility to its members and accepts the deposits from its members only to develop the habits of saving amongst themselves. The ld. A/R of the assessee has also argued that the surplus

NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

8 and 9 ]\n[In favour of assessee]\nIn view of above, it is submitted that legislature itself provides that variation of\nupto 10% in the stamp duty value of property vis a vis actual consideration is\npermissible, whereas in the instant case difference is 8.66%, i.e. below 10%, it is\n12\nITA No. 744/JP/2023\nNarain Lal Agrawal vs. DCIT

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)

section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the above sum is liable to be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. This will result in an addition of Rs. 2,65,591/-to the total income of the assessee.” Issue no. 3 “From the detailed discussion it is evident that the claim

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)

section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the above sum is liable to be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. This will result in an addition of Rs. 2,65,591/-to the total income of the assessee.” Issue no. 3 “From the detailed discussion it is evident that the claim

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)

section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the above sum is liable to be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. This will result in an addition of Rs. 2,65,591/-to the total income of the assessee.” Issue no. 3 “From the detailed discussion it is evident that the claim

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

8. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the\nRevenue is distinguishable on facts. The order which was to be passed by the\nassessing authority as preliminary objection of the assessee, once the assessee has\nraised the objection to such reassessment‘proceedings, the meeting of such\nobjections in the main reassessment order, could be procedural aspect

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

8. The ld AR has submitted that Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable at all, accordingly, disallowance made by the AO is illegal. Law does not allow the invocation of Section 40(a)(ia) for the cases of Section 194C(6) and 194C(7). In this he placed reliance on the judgement of ITAT Kolkata in the case

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

8. The assessee had claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961 of Rs. 46,09,729/- being interest received from Co-operative Societies which were not actually cooperative societies but cooperative bank. In this case, the conditions laid down by section 80P(2)(d) had not been satisfied as the interest income were received from

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:

2(15), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of section 13(8), seventeenth proviso to section 10(23C) and third oroviso to section 143(3) (all w.r.e.f. 1-4-2009), reaffirm this interpretation and bring uniformity across the statutory provisions. 5.1.6 All the facts and circumstances related to the impugned action of Ld. AO in disallowing