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

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

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)

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

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)

2) of the IT Act, 1961 was issued on 04.09.2014. Notices under section 142(1) along with questionnaire were issued on 18.02.2015 and 03.08.2015. In response to the notices, the assessee furnished the Books of account, bank statements and other details as required by the AO. Thereafter, the AO completed the assessment under section

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

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

c) served upon him in an improper manner:\nProvided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the\nassessee has raised such objection before the completion of such\nassessment or reassessment.\nAs per section 292BB of the Act where the notice was not served at all\neven those cases are statutorily deemed to be compliant with

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)

c) The deduction is @ 100% of such profits and gains for first 5 Assessment Years and thereafter a deduction is permissible @ 25% (or 30% where the assessee is a company). (d) Total period of deduction is 10 years, which means 100% deduction for first 5 years from the initial Assessment Year and 25% (or 30% where the assessee

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2,11,779/- i.e. 3 % of Rs. 70,59,315/- was also added to the income of the assessee as commission paid as per provision of section 69C of the Act. 6 Nirmal Kumar Agrawal vs. DCIT 4. Aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Center, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos

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

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

80P(2)(d)” Copy of order is enclosed. (2.3) Latest decision of this Honble Bench in the In the case of Mahendra Singh Dhankhar HUF vs. ACIT ITA No. 265/JP/2020 Jun 30, 2021 (2021) 62 CCH 0271 JaipurTrib where It has been held that 17 Sajjad Ali vs DCIT (intl.), Jaipur “Revision—Ordering revision where case is selected for limited