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

INCOME TAX OFFICEER, 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

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

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

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)(d

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/-. These wide variations between what was recorded as the\nbasis for reopening and what was finally added in assessment clearly demonstrate that the\nreasons were not supported by proper verification or accurate material.\n2.3 The position is even more striking in A.Y. 2016-17. In this year, the reasons\nrecorded-pursuant to an order u/s 148A(d

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/-. These wide variations between what was recorded as the\nbasis for reopening and what was finally added in assessment clearly demonstrate that the\nreasons were not supported by proper verification or accurate material.\n2.3 The position is even more striking in A.Y. 2016-17. In this year, the reasons\nrecorded-pursuant to an order u/s 148A(d

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/-. These wide variations between what was recorded as the\nbasis for reopening and what was finally added in assessment clearly demonstrate that the\nreasons were not supported by proper verification or accurate material.\n2.3 The position is even more striking in A.Y. 2016-17. In this year, the reasons\nrecorded-pursuant to an order u/s 148A(d

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

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 provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments

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.

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. 135/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 Krya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti cuke The ITO, Vs. Limited Deoli Ward, Tonk Nehru Market, Deoli, Tonk LFkk

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)

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 80I of the Act on the total income after reducing there from brought forward losses. Deduction under section 80I of the Act was worked out at ` 90,87,694/-. 14 Om Infra

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

d) of the Act was passed on 21/07/2022. The assessee has filed his original ITR for the A.Y.2013-14 on 29.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 32,81,670, Subsequently it was found that the assessee has transacted in shares of Midland Polymers PMC Fincorp Ltd. to the tune of 86,31,724/- against which the assessee has declared Rs.15

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