INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), KOTA , RAWATBHATA ROAD vs. HITKARI VIDYALAYA SHAKARI SHIKSHA SAMITI LIMITED, BHATAPARA, KOTA

80P(2)(d) of the Act. The\nbrief facts being not disputed by both the parties the same are not repeated\nand we directly deal with the allowability of deduction claimed by the\nassessee for an amount of Rs. 1,45,12,666/- as per provision of section\n80P(2)(d) of the Act. The assessee in the assessment

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

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

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

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 provided further\r\nproceedings in relation

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

2,22,704/- under section 80P of the\nAct. The issue for consideration before us is that whether once the\nreturn of income is filed beyond the prescribed date under section\n139(1) of the Act, can the deduction under section 80P of the Act be\ndenied to the assessee, by way of adjustment under section

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

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

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

2) (4), Mumbai [2018] 90 taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai -\nTrib.) as under:-\n\"3.2 As per section 68 of the Act, onus is upon the assessee to\ndischarge the burden so cast upon. First burden is upon the assessee to\nsatisfactorily explain the credit entry contained in his books of accounts.\nThe burden has to be discharged with positive material

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)

2,22,704/- under section 80P of the Act. The issue for consideration before us is that whether once the return of income is filed beyond the prescribed date under section 139(1) of the Act, can the deduction under section 80P of the Act be denied to the assessee, by way of adjustment under section

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(2

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

OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, we find no substantial question of law being involved in this appeal

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

2) 1. Briefly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy, as narrated in the appeal, may be noticed. The income of the assessee was assessed at ` 3,68,56,040/- as against nil income shown in the return of income. At the time of making assessment, the Assessing Officer allowed deduction under section