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

vi)\n(vii)\n(d)\n(4)\nthe marketing of agricultural produce grown by its\nmembers, or]\nthe purchase of agricultural implements, seeds,\nlivestock or other articles intended for agriculture for\nthe purpose of supplying them to its members\nthe whole of the amount of profits and gains of business\nattributable to any one or more of such activities

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

68 and the\nHon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Southern Eastern Employees\nCooperative Credit Society Ltd. 390 ITR 524 took a view that the income arising on the\nsurplus invested in short term deposits and securities cannot be attributed to the\nactivities of the society and, therefore, not eligible for exemption u/s.80P(2

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

68 and the\nHon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Southern Eastern Employees\nCooperative Credit Society Ltd. 390 ITR 524 took a view that the income arising on the\nsurplus invested in short term deposits and securities cannot be attributed to the\nactivities of the society and, therefore, not eligible for exemption u/s.80P(2

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

VI-A under the heading “C.-\r\nDeductions in respect of certain incomes” (which includes deduction under\r\nsection 80P of the Act), can be made if the return is furnished beyond the due\r\ndate specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. This amendment has been\r\nintroduced w.e.f. 1-4-2021. Accordingly, the above amendment

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

VI-A, including S. 80P, can only be allowed where a\nreturn is filed. Thus, while the reopening was initiated on the premise of unaccounted\ncash deposits, the addition finally sustained was entirely different in nature, i.e.,\ndisallowance of deduction u/s 80P.\n2.4 This clear disconnect between the reasons recorded and the additions made is fatal to\nthe validity

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

VI-A, including S. 80P, can only be allowed where a\nreturn is filed. Thus, while the reopening was initiated on the premise of unaccounted\ncash deposits, the addition finally sustained was entirely different in nature, i.e.,\ndisallowance of deduction u/s 80P.\n2.4 This clear disconnect between the reasons recorded and the additions made is fatal to\nthe validity

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

VI-A, including S. 80P, can only be allowed where a\nreturn is filed. Thus, while the reopening was initiated on the premise of unaccounted\ncash deposits, the addition finally sustained was entirely different in nature, i.e.,\ndisallowance of deduction u/s 80P.\n2.4 This clear disconnect between the reasons recorded and the additions made is fatal to\nthe validity

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

VI-A, including S. 80P, can only be allowed where a\nreturn is filed. Thus, while the reopening was initiated on the premise of unaccounted\ncash deposits, the addition finally sustained was entirely different in nature, i.e.,\ndisallowance of deduction u/s 80P.\n\n2.4 This clear disconnect between the reasons recorded and the additions made is fatal to\nthe validity

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

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

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

80P of the Act with retrospective effect from 1-4-1968 in National\nAgricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation's case (supra) held that a\ntest of length of time covered by retrospective opration cannot by itself\nnecessarily be a decisive test. The question to be considered is whether\nthe retrospectivity of the legislation leads to be a new levy causing

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

80P - Assessee against impugned order filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) with a delay of 11 days and sought condonation of delay in filing appeal stating that delay was due to non-availability of its legal consultant - Commissioner (Appeals) refused to condone delay and dismissed appeal in limine - Whether since filing an appeal in tax matters 13 Nirmal Kumar Agrawal

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

BALITHAL GRAM SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,TONK vs. RJN-W-(107)(5), TONK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalbalithal Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Limited, Balithal Uniara Tonk, 304024 Pan No.: Aabab4614R ...... Appellant Vs.

VI-A of Rs. 13,04,658/-. Ultimately, the case of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 13,04,658/- after disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 80P of the Act.The assessee being aggrieved with this order of the AO, preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee