SOYALA GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,TONK vs. ITO, TONK, TONK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

80A(5) of the Income tax Act, 1961 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, withdrawn any of the grounds of appeal before hearing. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 26 days. The ld. A/R has filed condonation applications dated 28.08.2024 and 30.08.2024 along with an Affidavit of Shri Ram Narain, Secretary

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue

80A (4) of Rs. 98,13,07,575/- instead of Rs. 95,11,66,028/- claimed by the assessee. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing deduction u/s 80IA on interest income including penal interest income and on other income. Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs.ACIT, Jaipur 3. Whether

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORTATION LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue

80A (4) of Rs. 98,13,07,575/- instead of Rs. 95,11,66,028/- claimed by the assessee. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing deduction u/s 80IA on interest income including penal interest income and on other income. Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs.ACIT, Jaipur 3. Whether

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

80A(5) of the Act is\napplicable only when a return of income is filed by an assessee and a deduction under\nChapter VI “A” of the Act, is not claimed in such return of income. It will not apply to a\ncase where no return of income is filed. The provisions of section 80AC

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

80A(5) of the Act is\napplicable only when a return of income is filed by an assessee and a deduction under\nChapter VI “A” of the Act, is not claimed in such return of income. It will not apply to a\ncase where no return of income is filed. The provisions of section 80AC

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

80A(5) of the Act is\napplicable only when a return of income is filed by an assessee and a deduction under\nChapter VI “A” of the Act, is not claimed in such return of income. It will not apply to a\ncase where no return of income is filed. The provisions of section 80AC

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

80A(5) of the Act is\napplicable only when a return of income is filed by an assessee and a deduction under\nChapter VI “A” of the Act, is not claimed in such return of income. It will not apply to a\ncase where no return of income is filed. The provisions of section 80AC

SUNRISE REALCONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHIWADI, BHIWADI

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment was completed under Section 144 (best judgment assessment) based on available records. A motor vehicle purchase of Rs. 35,46,667. Commission/brokerage receipts amounting to Rs. 31,17,181 during F.Y. 2012-13. A letter under Section 133(6) was issued to Bird Automotive Pvt. Ltd., from which the vehicle was purchased. Bird Automotive confirmed the sale

SARAF EXPORT,CHURU vs. ACIT, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

80A and 80AB and Section 80B(5) and also Section 80HH(9). It may be noticed that the decision in Vishnu Oil and Dal Mills case (1996), 218 ITR 71 (Raj.) dealt with the question whether in computing the gross total income for the purpose of Chapter VI-A requires adjustments of unabsorbed carry forward loss or unabsorbed carry forward

SUNRISE REALCONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BHIWADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHIWADI, BHIWADI

reassessment was\ncompleted under Section 144 (best judgment assessment) based on available\nrecords. A motor vehicle purchase of Rs.35,46,667. Commission/brokerage\nreceipts amounting to Rs.31,17,181 during F.Y. 2012-13. A letter under Section\n133(6) was issued to Bird Automotive Pvt. Ltd., from which the vehicle was\npurchased. Bird Automotive confirmed the sale