AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

22 | P a g e continue to hold field, save and except for those grounds on which a reassessment has been made under section 143(3) read with section 147 - Held, yes Fact: For the relevant assessment year, the assessee's original order of assessment under section 143(3) dated 27-12-2006 was sought to be reopened

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. M/S. BHILWARA ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD., BHILWARA

In the result the ground No

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act amount to Rs. 2,23,46,187/- was deleted. The issue before us is that whether the assessee being co-operative society be denied benefit of section 80P(2)(d) of the Act on interest received from another co- operative society engaged in banking activities. The similar issue

PATEL MINERALS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowances. Thereafter, a notice u/s 263 notice was received by the assessee from the ld PCIT, Udaipur stating that the report required for this purpose should be from the FCA i.e. the fellow member of the ICAI whereas the report in question was obtained from an associate member of the ICAI. As this point was ignored

APNA GHAR ASHRAM,JODHPUR vs. DDIT, CPC / ITO, WARD (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE / JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

disallowing the claim of exemption under section 11 and making an addition of Rs. 2 1,60,22,225/-, thereby

THE LAKE PALACE HOTELS & MOTELSPRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PCIT,CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowances: (i) U/s 2(22)(e) Rs.3,70,40,305/- (ii) U/s 36(1)(iii) Rs.1,18,44,224/- (iii) Aircraft expenses Rs. 8,99,000/- Grounds for proposed revision u/s 263 are as under 1. Applicability of provisions of section

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance by following the decision of the co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding year and as the Revenue has not been able to show any distinguishable facts, we are of the view that the finding of the learned CIT (A) is on right footing and does not call for any interference

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance by following the decision of the co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding year and as the Revenue has not been able to show any distinguishable facts, we are of the view that the finding of the learned CIT (A) is on right footing and does not call for any interference

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance by following the decision of the co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding year and as the Revenue has not been able to show any distinguishable facts, we are of the view that the finding of the learned CIT (A) is on right footing and does not call for any interference

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance by following the decision of the co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding year and as the Revenue has not been able to show any distinguishable facts, we are of the view that the finding of the learned CIT (A) is on right footing and does not call for any interference

IDANA PET INDUSTRIES P. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance of share premium worth Rs.171,22,500/- The appellant has issued on premium of Rs.90 per share. During the year, aggregate consideration received for such share was of Rs.19,02,500/- and share premium of Rs.1,71.22,500/-. The Assessing Officer as per section 56(2

IDANA PET INDUSTRIES P. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance of share premium worth Rs.171,22,500/- The appellant has issued on premium of Rs.90 per share. During the year, aggregate consideration received for such share was of Rs.19,02,500/- and share premium of Rs.1,71.22,500/-. The Assessing Officer as per section 56(2

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

22 of the said Act. Conclusion: In the instant case, although the appellant society is an apex cooperative society within the meaning of the State Act, 1984, it is not a co- operative bank within the meaning of Section 5 (b) read with Section 56 of 19 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

22 of the said Act. Conclusion: In the instant case, although the appellant society is an apex cooperative society within the meaning of the State Act, 1984, it is not a co- operative bank within the meaning of Section 5 (b) read with Section 56 of 19 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

22 of the said Act. Conclusion: In the instant case, although the appellant society is an apex cooperative society within the meaning of the State Act, 1984, it is not a co- operative bank within the meaning of Section 5 (b) read with Section 56 of 19 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

22 of the said Act. Conclusion: In the instant case, although the appellant society is an apex cooperative society within the meaning of the State Act, 1984, it is not a co- operative bank within the meaning of Section 5 (b) read with Section 56 of 19 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank

ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI. vs. M/S. RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK, , JODHPUR

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

22 of the said Act. Conclusion: In the instant case, although the appellant society is an apex cooperative society within the meaning of the State Act, 1984, it is not a co- operative bank within the meaning of Section 5 (b) read with Section 56 of 19 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

22 of the said Act. Conclusion: In the instant case, although the appellant society is an apex cooperative society within the meaning of the State Act, 1984, it is not a co- operative bank within the meaning of Section 5 (b) read with Section 56 of 19 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank

SUNIL KUMAR DOSHI,BARMER vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1,, BANGALORE / BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Making Assessment, Which Is Beyond Jurisdiction Of The Present Proceedings. 2. A. The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 62,641/- Made By The Ld. Ao In 143(1) Order On Account Of Depreciation Claimed. B. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Following The Decision Of Hon’Ble

22 taxmann.com 88 (Ahmadabad Tribunal- Special Bench): In this case, Special Bench of Hon'ble ITAT has held that share income of a partner from partnership firm is not liable to tax under section 10(2A) of the Act and, in such a case, provisions of section 14A of the Act apply to disallow expenditure incurred on earning said income