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

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

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

disallowing exemption claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 8. In the latest judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Assessing Officer”, [2023] 154 taxmann.com 305 (SC) has observed as under: “15.13. Further, under the provisions of the State Act, 1984, 'agricultural and rural development bank

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

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

2. In this ground, the appellant has challenged disallowance of expenses on which TDS was not made. This disallowance was made by the AO as there were certain expenses on which TDS was not made and the appellant himself had admitted this fact and made disallowance in his ITR. The stand of the appellant is that once income is assessed

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

Disallowance 17 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. made invoking provisions of rule 8D may kindly be deleted as Rule 8D is not applicable for AY 2007-08. 11. For the purposes of computing the total income under section 14A of the Act, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred

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

Disallowance 17 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. made invoking provisions of rule 8D may kindly be deleted as Rule 8D is not applicable for AY 2007-08. 11. For the purposes of computing the total income under section 14A of the Act, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred

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

Disallowance 17 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. made invoking provisions of rule 8D may kindly be deleted as Rule 8D is not applicable for AY 2007-08. 11. For the purposes of computing the total income under section 14A of the Act, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred

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

Disallowance 17 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. made invoking provisions of rule 8D may kindly be deleted as Rule 8D is not applicable for AY 2007-08. 11. For the purposes of computing the total income under section 14A of the Act, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred

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

Disallowance 17 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. made invoking provisions of rule 8D may kindly be deleted as Rule 8D is not applicable for AY 2007-08. 11. For the purposes of computing the total income under section 14A of the Act, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred

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

Disallowance 17 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. made invoking provisions of rule 8D may kindly be deleted as Rule 8D is not applicable for AY 2007-08. 11. For the purposes of computing the total income under section 14A of the Act, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred

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

2 : Order made u/s 143(1) and Disallowance of depreciation claimed Rs. 62,641/-: 1.1. The appellant had filed return of income on 18.8.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 51,94,140/- which was assessed u/s 143(1) at Rs. 52,56,780/-. The variation in income was on account of not allowing claim of depreciation

SUNIL PAGARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

56,670/-. After processing U/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS accordingly notice u/s 143(2) of the act dated 02.09.2014 was issued and duly served to the assessee. The assessee earned long term capital gain of Rs. 65,06,891/- and claimed exemption

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

56(c)(1)(cca) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1946. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is justified in law in holding that the assessee is not cooperative bank by ignoring that the assessee fulfilled conditions applicable to cooperative banks as per Part V of the Banking Regulation

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

56(c)(1)(cca) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1946. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is justified in law in holding that the assessee is not cooperative bank by ignoring that the assessee fulfilled conditions applicable to cooperative banks as per Part V of the Banking Regulation