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

disallowed exemption claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) and 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.Also, he relies on the latest judgement of Apex Court in the case of “Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Assessing Officer”, [2023] 154 taxmann.com 305 (SC). 7.1 Further the Ld. DR argued that interest earned on FDR is income from investment

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)

80P(2). In view of above, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and thus the ground of the department be dismissed.” Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. The ld. AR of the assessee in support of disallowance for ESI & PF also 9. filed additional written submission and same is reiterated in here in below: Further Submission

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)

80P(2). In view of above, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and thus the ground of the department be dismissed.” Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. The ld. AR of the assessee in support of disallowance for ESI & PF also 9. filed additional written submission and same is reiterated in here in below: Further Submission

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)

80P(2). In view of above, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and thus the ground of the department be dismissed.” Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. The ld. AR of the assessee in support of disallowance for ESI & PF also 9. filed additional written submission and same is reiterated in here in below: Further Submission

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 80P(2)(d) are not applicable in this case. Consequently, deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the I.T. Act of Rs.3,02,09,525/- is not allowable to the assessee. Hence the deduction of Rs.3,02,09,525/- was required to be disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. However, such amount was not disallowed

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

disallowing the deduction referred to section 80P(4) of the\nAct. Section 80P(4) reads as under:-\n(4) The provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to any co-operative\nbank other than a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative\nagricultural and rural development bank.”\nAs per section 80P(4), a cooperative society engaged

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

disallowing the deduction referred to section 80P(4) of the\nAct. Section 80P(4) reads as under:-\n(4) The provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to any co-operative\nbank other than a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative\nagricultural and rural development bank.”\nAs per section 80P(4), a cooperative society engaged

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,PALASANA vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

disallowed the expenditure of Rs.2,86,918/- on account of provisions and audit fees and computed the income of the assessee at Rs.3,95,382/- as against Rs.1,08,464/- and after deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(a)(iv) at nil and completed the assessment at Rs. Nil vide assessment order

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

disallowed the expenditure of Rs.2,86,918/- on account of provisions and audit fees and computed the income of the assessee at Rs.3,95,382/- as against Rs.1,08,464/- and after deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(a)(iv) at nil and completed the assessment at Rs. Nil vide assessment order

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,PALSANA vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

disallowed the expenditure of Rs.2,86,918/- on account of provisions and audit fees and computed the income of the assessee at Rs.3,95,382/- as against Rs.1,08,464/- and after deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(a)(iv) at nil and completed the assessment at Rs. Nil vide assessment order

KUMHER KRIYA VIKRYA SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD.,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

80P. (1) Where, in the case of an assessee being a co-operative society, the gross total income includes any income referred to in sub-section (2), there shall be deducted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, the sums specified in sub-section (2), in computing the total income of the assessee. (2) The sums

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

iv) and u/s 80P(2)(d)\r\nof the Act. The assessee's claim of deduction under chapter VIA was not\r\nallowable as per the provision of section 80AC of the Act and thereby the\r\nclaim was not allowed by disallowing

SHRI MADHOPUR KRAYA VIKRAYA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,SHRIMADHOPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEEM KA THANA, NEEM KA THANA

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

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

disallowing deduction of Rs. 4,71,247/- under section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Income Tax Act. 3. On the facts

BARODA RAJASTHAN KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK,AJMER vs. DY. CIT (ACIT) CIRCLE -2 AJMER , CR BUILDING,OPP. SESSION COURT,JAIPUR ROAD ,AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarbaroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, 2343 Rajasthan Patrika Building, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer – 305004 Pan No. Aaajb1164C ...... Appellant

disallowance of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. The assessee being further aggrieved preferred the present appeal before us. 4. We have gone through the order of the AO, order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submissions of the assessee alongwith grounds taken before us. It is observed that the assessee is an artificial judicial person (AJP) as the same

THIKARIYA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD ,THIKARIYA vs. AO CPCITO WARD SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

iv) Disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) Disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-1AB, 80-1B, 80-IC, 80-ID, or section 80-IE if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub- section

M/S ALWAR KRAY VIKRAY SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD.,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-3, ALWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

80P(2)(a)(iv) at Rs. 3,83,103/-. 2. The ld. CIT (A) has erred on factgs and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 29,609/- u/s 14A of the IT Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D. 3. The assessee craves right to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of the appeal. 4. The appropriate

M/S ALWAR KRAY VIKRAY SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD.,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-3, ALWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

80P(2)(a)(iv) at Rs. 3,83,103/-. 2. The ld. CIT (A) has erred on factgs and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 29,609/- u/s 14A of the IT Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D. 3. The assessee craves right to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of the appeal. 4. The appropriate

ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

80P not 80IBA and under the law the condition is 18 Aravali Buildhome LLP prescribed for claiming deduction u/s. 80IBA of the Act. Based on those arguments ld. DR supported the order of lower authority. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. Vide ground no. 2 the assessee challenges the finding