SHRI JAWAHIR RAVICHANDRA MEHTA,DUBAI(UAE) vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result appeal of the assessee vide ITA/81/Rjt/2020 stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Memebr

6. Respectfully following the order above of the ITAT, we reverse the order of the authorities below and accordingly hold that the proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act are not sustainable. Accordingly, we quash the same. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

GODHAVADAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,GODHAVADAR, LILIYA MOTA, AMRELI-365535 vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

6,53,498/- 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

BATAVA DEVLI SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,BATAVA DEVLI, TAL. KUNLAVA, DIST. AMRELI. vs. THE ADIT, (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

C.— Deductions in respect of certain incomes" (which includes deduction under section 80P of the Act), can be made if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. This amendment has been introduced w.e.f. 1-4-2021. Accordingly, the above amendment would not apply to the impugned assessment year

PARAG MAKANBHAI PARSANA,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

6) and 206C(7) were passed on 17.3.2017 whereby TCS liability of Rs.68,656/- was determined in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha. In the case of Vishal Enterprises, such liability was determined at Rs.22,68,692/- vide order dated 30.3.2017. Dissatisfied with these orders, all these assessees went in appeals before the ld.CIT(A). 4. During the pendency

JAYESHBHAI KANJIBHAI DANGARIYA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

6) and 206C(7) were passed on 17.3.2017 whereby TCS liability of Rs.68,656/- was determined in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha. In the case of Vishal Enterprises, such liability was determined at Rs.22,68,692/- vide order dated 30.3.2017. Dissatisfied with these orders, all these assessees went in appeals before the ld.CIT(A). 4. During the pendency

VISHAL ENTERPRISE, ,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

6) and 206C(7) were passed on 17.3.2017 whereby TCS liability of Rs.68,656/- was determined in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha. In the case of Vishal Enterprises, such liability was determined at Rs.22,68,692/- vide order dated 30.3.2017. Dissatisfied with these orders, all these assessees went in appeals before the ld.CIT(A). 4. During the pendency

RAKESH BASANTILAL LADDHA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

6) and 206C(7) were passed on 17.3.2017 whereby TCS liability of Rs.68,656/- was determined in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha. In the case of Vishal Enterprises, such liability was determined at Rs.22,68,692/- vide order dated 30.3.2017. Dissatisfied with these orders, all these assessees went in appeals before the ld.CIT(A). 4. During the pendency

AMBARADI SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,AMBARADI , DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT(CPC), BANGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

68 taxmann.com 298] (copy enclosed) has held that the return filed beyond the period stipulated u/s 139(1) or 139(4) or u/s. 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for allowing the claim u/s.80P. However, the Hon'ble Court has not considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

DHARESHWAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD. ,VILLAGE: - DHARESHWAR, TALUKA: - RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

68 taxmann.com 298] (copy enclosed) has held that the return filed beyond the period stipulated u/s 139(1) or 139(4) or u/s. 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for allowing the claim u/s.80P. However, the Hon'ble Court has not considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

SHREE SANALIYA SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,LITAL MOTALILIYA SANALIYA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

68 taxmann.com 298] (copy enclosed) has held that the return filed beyond the period stipulated u/s 139(1) or 139(4) or u/s. 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for allowing the claim u/s.80P. However, the Hon'ble Court has not considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

AMRUTPUR SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,VILLAGE: - AMRUTPUR TALUKA DHARI, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

68 taxmann.com 298] (copy enclosed) has held that the return filed beyond the period stipulated u/s 139(1) or 139(4) or u/s. 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for allowing the claim u/s.80P. However, the Hon'ble Court has not considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

1,00,69,186/- including the unaccounted expenditure of Rs. 80,68,1867-relevant to the year under consideration in their presence and his three sons had confirmed the contents of that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. The appellant had also failed to file the affidavits of the two independent witnesses in whose presence the whole search

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

1,00,69,186/- including the unaccounted expenditure of Rs. 80,68,1867-relevant to the year under consideration in their presence and his three sons had confirmed the contents of that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. The appellant had also failed to file the affidavits of the two independent witnesses in whose presence the whole search

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

1,00,69,186/- including the unaccounted expenditure of Rs. 80,68,1867-relevant to the year under consideration in their presence and his three sons had confirmed the contents of that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. The appellant had also failed to file the affidavits of the two independent witnesses in whose presence the whole search

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

1,00,69,186/- including the unaccounted expenditure of Rs. 80,68,1867-relevant to the year under consideration in their presence and his three sons had confirmed the contents of that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. The appellant had also failed to file the affidavits of the two independent witnesses in whose presence the whole search

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

1,00,69,186/- including the unaccounted expenditure of Rs. 80,68,1867-relevant to the year under consideration in their presence and his three sons had confirmed the contents of that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. The appellant had also failed to file the affidavits of the two independent witnesses in whose presence the whole search

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

1,00,69,186/- including the unaccounted expenditure of Rs. 80,68,1867-relevant to the year under consideration in their presence and his three sons had confirmed the contents of that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. The appellant had also failed to file the affidavits of the two independent witnesses in whose presence the whole search

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

1,00,69,186/- including the unaccounted expenditure of Rs. 80,68,1867-relevant to the year under consideration in their presence and his three sons had confirmed the contents of that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. The appellant had also failed to file the affidavits of the two independent witnesses in whose presence the whole search

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

1,00,69,186/- including the unaccounted expenditure of Rs. 80,68,1867-relevant to the year under consideration in their presence and his three sons had confirmed the contents of that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. The appellant had also failed to file the affidavits of the two independent witnesses in whose presence the whole search