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.

2)(d). During the course of proceedings u/s 263, society had claimed that interest earned by it was from Sikar kendriya Sahakari Bank Ltd, which is registered as a Co-operative Society certificate is enclosed, but assessee has not submitted any details of interest earned form it or any other bank. Therefore the facts of the Society could

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.

2)(d). During the course of proceedings u/s 263, society had claimed that interest earned by it was from Sikar kendriya Sahakari Bank Ltd, which is registered as a Co-operative Society certificate is enclosed, but assessee has not submitted any details of interest earned form it or any other bank. Therefore the facts of the Society could

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

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 the same and thereby it is clear that\r\nno addition was made on the issue upon which the case

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

d)alleged cash deposits of ₹70,92,789/-.\nHowever, in the assessment order ultimately passed, no addition on account of such\nalleged deposits was made. Instead, the AO proceeded to disallow deduction u/s 80P\namounting to ₹14,38,852/-, solely on the ground that no return of income had been filed\nand that deductions under Chapter VI-A, including

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

d)alleged cash deposits of ₹70,92,789/-.\nHowever, in the assessment order ultimately passed, no addition on account of such\nalleged deposits was made. Instead, the AO proceeded to disallow deduction u/s 80P\namounting to ₹14,38,852/-, solely on the ground that no return of income had been filed\nand that deductions under Chapter VI-A, including

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

d)alleged cash deposits of ₹70,92,789/-.\nHowever, in the assessment order ultimately passed, no addition on account of such\nalleged deposits was made. Instead, the AO proceeded to disallow deduction u/s 80P\namounting to ₹14,38,852/-, solely on the ground that no return of income had been filed\nand that deductions under Chapter VI-A, including

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

d)alleged cash deposits of ₹70,92,789/-.\nHowever, in the assessment order ultimately passed, no addition on account of such\nalleged deposits was made. Instead, the AO proceeded to disallow deduction u/s 80P\namounting to ₹14,38,852/-, solely on the ground that no return of income had been filed\nand that deductions under Chapter VI-A, including

INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAWATBHATA ROAD vs. BOREKHEDA GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, HEAD OFFICE NEAR DWARKADIS

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

80P(2)(d) of the Act. Thus, irregular allowance of deduction resulted in under computation of income of assessee by Rs.1,67,51,945/- involving under charge of tax of Rs.75,73,002/- On the basis of above facts, I have reason to believe that incone amounting Re. 1,67,61,045/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section

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

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

d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person.]:- there is no such decision. If so then how the action can be taken u/s 263, hence liable to be quashed

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision\nwhich is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High\nCourt or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other\nperson.]:- there is no such decision.\nIf so then how the action can be taken u/s 263, hence liable to be\nquashed.\n1. 2

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)

section. The second limb of this proviso i.e. for assessing other issues can only be invoked if first limb is satisfied i.e. when an addition/ disallowance is being made on the issue which was formed the basis for initiation of reassessment proceedings. As in the instant case since no addition/ disallowance was made on the reasons framed for issue

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

80P - Assessee against impugned order filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) with a delay of 11 days and sought condonation of delay in filing appeal stating that delay was due to non-availability of its legal consultant - Commissioner (Appeals) refused to condone delay and dismissed appeal in limine - Whether since filing an appeal in tax matters 13 Nirmal Kumar Agrawal

BALITHAL GRAM SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,TONK vs. RJN-W-(107)(5), TONK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalbalithal Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Limited, Balithal Uniara Tonk, 304024 Pan No.: Aabab4614R ...... Appellant Vs.

80P of the Act claimed by the assessee, which is not sustainable in law. No doubt, a separate proceeding u/s. 148 of the Act can be issued against the assessee on this issue, if possible, but in this proceeding, action of the authorities below is not sustainable as per law. Our view is being further fortified by the authority

SH. BADALURAM,FAULADPUR, ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 720/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 cuke Sh. Badaluram ITO, S/o Bah Ram, Vs. Ward- Behror. Fauladpur Neemrana, Alwar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR