M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

disallowances made are beyond the scope and ambit of adjustment provided under section 143(1)(a) while processing the returns of income. • At the time of filing of returns of income by the assessee for the respective assessment years, the law prevailing on the said date allowed the assessee to claim deduction of employees’ contribution

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

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

section 263(2), the notice issued on 30-4- 2009 was barred by limitation. 6.4 In Tata Power Company Ltd. Vs. PCIT (2021) 90 ITR TRIB (Trib) 554 (Mum), it was held that: 23 | P a g e "10. A perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment under s. 147 of the Act, as reproduced in the body

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 exemption claimed under section 11, has been upheld. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, a public charitable trust registered under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2022–23

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHILWARA, SHASTRI NAGAR, BHILWARA vs. BHILWARA ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SANG LIMITED, AJMER ROAD, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

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

disallowed exemption claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. In support, he relies on the latest judgment of Apex Court in the case of “Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Assessing Officer”, [2023] 154 taxmann.com 305 (SC), 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently relied upon the impugned order by reiterating the submissions made

M/S. SUNIL & COMPANY,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

section 143(3)/254 of the Income Tax Act, by ACIT, Circle-01, Jodhpur[ here in after reffered to as “ld. AO”]. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of interest for Rs. 13,23

SHRI SEWARAM CHARITABLE TRUST ,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD, EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

23-4-2019 has clarified with regard to the time allowed for filing of the return of income subsequent to the insertion of clause (ba) in sub section (1) of section 12A of the IT Act which includes the IT return filed within the time allowed u/s. 139 of the Act. Notably, the Delhi ITAT in the case of Conference

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

Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a Gramin Bank Act whose primary object is not to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other cooperative societies and not member of the public. Thus, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Ltd, a Regional Rural Bank and not a co-operative bank would not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(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

Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a Gramin Bank Act whose primary object is not to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other cooperative societies and not member of the public. Thus, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Ltd, a Regional Rural Bank and not a co-operative bank would not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(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

Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a Gramin Bank Act whose primary object is not to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other cooperative societies and not member of the public. Thus, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Ltd, a Regional Rural Bank and not a co-operative bank would not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2

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

Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a Gramin Bank Act whose primary object is not to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other cooperative societies and not member of the public. Thus, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Ltd, a Regional Rural Bank and not a co-operative bank would not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2

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

Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a Gramin Bank Act whose primary object is not to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other cooperative societies and not member of the public. Thus, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Ltd, a Regional Rural Bank and not a co-operative bank would not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2

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

Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a Gramin Bank Act whose primary object is not to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other cooperative societies and not member of the public. Thus, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Ltd, a Regional Rural Bank and not a co-operative bank would not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2

ITO, WARD-1(5), JODHPUR vs. PUSTIKAR SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD., JODHPUR

23,507/- of the Society by considering the status of the society as a Co-operative Bank. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the findings are reproduced as under:- “ 5. The appellant has vehemently contested the disallowance made by the AO The crux

ITO, WARD-1(5), JODHPUR vs. M/S. PUSHTIKAR SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD., JODHPUR

23,507/- of the Society by considering the status of the society as a Co-operative Bank. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the findings are reproduced as under:- “ 5. The appellant has vehemently contested the disallowance made by the AO The crux

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

23 flats for financial year 2015-16. Accordingly he estimated the additional\ncharges of these flats and worked out to Rs.67,50,000/- and Rs.57,50,000/- for\nfinancial year 2014-15 and 2015-16 i.e A.Y. 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively by\nstating that the same is not considered and declared by the assessee company in the\nreturn

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

2,86,16,394/39. The same is also verifiable from the schedule of additions in fixed assets. Capital investment in fixed assets made during the year, for which deduction under 35AD was claimed. 7. The CBDT Circular dated 11/04/1955 clarify the issues further that it is the duty of the revenue to assist a taxpayer in every reasonable way, particularly