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

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

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), 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

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

KRYA VIKRAYA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED DEOLI,DEOLI TONK vs. ITO TONK, TONK

Appeal of the appellant is dismissed and the order of the AO is confirmed

Bench: Him.

68 of the Act to the total income declared by the assessee. Tax is 10 Krya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Deoli, Tonk. charged on this addition in accordance with the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. The assessee was a consumer cooperative society which deals in controlled and uncontrolled items like fertilizers, seeds and controlled items like sugar

ITO, KOTA vs. KOTA SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD., KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68,019/- In the quantum appeal only two additions were sustained namely provision for bad debts and bad interest of Rs. 73,51,000/- and deduction for TDS of Rs. 19,803/-. The AO initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) and levied the penalty against these two additions vide order dated 19.03.2015. The assessee challenged