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

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

section 80P(2)(a)(i) at Para 6 of the order, analysing the expression ‘attributable to’ at Para 7 & 8 of the order and distinguishing the judgment of Supreme Court at Para 9 of the order, at Para 10 of the order held as under:- 10. In the instant case, the amount which was invested in banks to earn

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)(a)(i) was\nclaimed. The Ld. CIT(A) after relying on the decision of Apex Court in case of\nTotgars Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. Vs. ITO (2010) 322 ITR 283/188 Taxman\n282 denied the deduction. The Hon'ble ITAT after reproducing section\n80P(2)(a)(i) at Para 6 of the order, analysing the expression ‘attributable

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)(a)(i) was\nclaimed. The Ld. CIT(A) after relying on the decision of Apex Court in case of\nTotgars Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. Vs. ITO (2010) 322 ITR 283/188 Taxman\n282 denied the deduction. The Hon'ble ITAT after reproducing section\n80P(2)(a)(i) at Para 6 of the order, analysing the expression ‘attributable

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

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

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala),\nthe Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond\nperiod stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section\n142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for\nentertaining claim raised under section 80P

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

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held\r\nthat a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or\r\n139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted\r\nupon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P

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

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

68 of the Act. The\ncalculation approach adopted by the learned AO is also found to be\ncorrect.\nFurther alternatively and without prejudice, the unexplained cash\nreceived by the appellant is also the unexplained money with the\nappellant which is taxable under section 69A of the Act. It is held\naccordingly.\nIn view of the above discussion this ground

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

68,59,417/-. In\nA.Y. 2016-17, the reasons recorded alleged cash deposits of ₹70,92,789/-, yet in the\nassessment, the AO chose to disallow deduction u/s 80P amounting to ₹14,38,852/-(i.e.\nSurplus declared during the year).\n5.2 These striking discrepancies between the amounts cited in the reasons recorded and\nthe actual figures reflected in the assessee

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

68,59,417/-. In\nA.Y. 2016-17, the reasons recorded alleged cash deposits of ₹70,92,789/-, yet in the\nassessment, the AO chose to disallow deduction u/s 80P amounting to ₹14,38,852/-(i.e.\nSurplus declared during the year).\n5.2 These striking discrepancies between the amounts cited in the reasons recorded and\nthe actual figures reflected in the assessee

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

68,59,417/-. In\nA.Y. 2016-17, the reasons recorded alleged cash deposits of ₹70,92,789/-, yet in the\nassessment, the AO chose to disallow deduction u/s 80P amounting to ₹14,38,852/-(i.e.\nSurplus declared during the year).\n5.2 These striking discrepancies between the amounts cited in the reasons recorded and\nthe actual figures reflected in the assessee

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

68,59,417/-. In\nA.Y. 2016-17, the reasons recorded alleged cash deposits of ₹70,92,789/-, yet in the\nassessment, the AO chose to disallow deduction u/s 80P amounting to ₹14,38,852/-(i.e.\nSurplus declared during the year).\n\n5.2 These striking discrepancies between the amounts cited in the reasons recorded and\nthe actual figures reflected

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)

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P

M/S RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,041/- has been claimed under clause (c) & (d) of sub-section (2) of section 80P. It also

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act and thereby the ld. AO is taxing the whole receipt without giving the benefit of the money which the assessee invested. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the similar issue was raised in the case of his wife and the revenue has dropped that proceeding. Based on that fact ld. AR of the assessee submitted

M/S JAIPUR ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for A

68,660/-, which was assessed u/s 143(3) at Rs.18,29,43,360/- vide order dated 30.12.2014. In this case, on perusal of case record, it is noted that the assessee has claimed and was allowed deduction of Rs.1,59,92,544/- under section 80P

RAJASTHAN RAJYA SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 being 100% of amount of tax sought to be evaded. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) upheld the decision of the AO and confirmed the levy of penalty. 5. Aggrieved by the order