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

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

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

80P(2)(d) of the Act it would be\nnecessary to go through the provision of said section, which reads as\nunder;\nDeduction in respect of income of co-operative societies.\n23\nITA Nos.1007 to 1009/JP/2025\nWest Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. vs. ITO\n80P. (1) Where, in the case of an assessee being a co-operative society

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

80P(2)(d) of the Act it would be\nnecessary to go through the provision of said section, which reads as\nunder;\nDeduction in respect of income of co-operative societies.\n23\nITA Nos.1007 to 1009/JP/2025\nWest Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. vs. ITO\n80P. (1) Where, in the case of an assessee being a co-operative society

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

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

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

SAJJAD ALI,CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT(INTL)- JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

80P(2)(d)” Copy of order is enclosed. (2.3) Latest decision of this Honble Bench in the In the case of Mahendra Singh Dhankhar HUF vs. ACIT ITA No. 265/JP/2020 Jun 30, 2021 (2021) 62 CCH 0271 JaipurTrib where It has been held that 17 Sajjad Ali vs DCIT (intl.), Jaipur “Revision—Ordering revision where case is selected for limited

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR, ALWAR vs. ALWAR ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD., ALWAR

In the result, the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

housing 13 ITA No. 634 & CO. No. 7/JPR/2023 ACIT vs. Alwar Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari sangh Ltd. accommodation or for the purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and villages, or for both; or (g) any society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or under any law corresponding to that Act in force

ANIL KUMAR BATAR,SIKAR vs. PCIT-JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

80P(2)(d)\"\nCopy of order is enclosed.\n(3.3) Latest decision of this Honble Bench in the In the case of\nMahendra Singh Dhankhar HUF vs. ACIT ITA No. 265/JP/2020 Jun\n30, 2021 (2021) 62 CCH 0271 JaipurTribwhere It has been held that\n“Revision-Ordering revision where case is selected for limited\nscrutiny-Assessee firm is a real

RAGHAV KUMAR DHOOT,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

property and income\nfrom other sources.\n3.1 In the case of M/s Dhoot Sangmermer Pvt. Ltd, a survey\nunder section 133A of the Act was carried out on 05/06/2018 and\nduring the course of survey, certain papers were found at the\nbusiness premises of the company which was inventorised by the\nsurvey party as Annexure A-(Exhibit No.02). Shri Raghav

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, N.C.R. BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act but would also be applicable to all banks/commercial banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies. 38. From this, Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular carves out a distinction between 'stock-in-trade' and 'investment' and provides that if the motive behind purchase and sale of shares

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAIPUR, STATUE CIRCLE

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act but would also be applicable to all banks/commercial banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies. 38. From this, Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular carves out a distinction between 'stock-in-trade' and 'investment' and provides that if the motive behind purchase and sale of shares

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

80P of the Act. Thus, there is no means by which the payee are exempted from tax. The ld. CIT(A) has granted the relief to the assessee based on the circular of state government and the decision of the apex court is not applicable to the present set of facts. The provision of the Central Act cannot be exempted

ITO(TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

80P of the Act. Thus, there is no means by which the payee are exempted from tax. The ld. CIT(A) has granted the relief to the assessee based on the circular of state government and the decision of the apex court is not applicable to the present set of facts. The provision of the Central Act cannot be exempted

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

80P of the Act. Thus, there is no means by which the payee are exempted from tax. The ld. CIT(A) has granted the relief to the assessee based on the circular of state government and the decision of the apex court is not applicable to the present set of facts. The provision of the Central Act cannot be exempted

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

house property he did not offer the capital gains for tax-Later,\nhe annexed a note to the revised return stating that no tax is payable on\nthe capital gain as it is long-term capital gain and he has purchased\nanother property within 6 months out of the sale consideration—\nAssessee was acting on the wrong advice