Pustikar Laghu Vyaparik Pratishhan Bachat Evam Sakh Sahkarisimiti Ltd., Jodhpur v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Taxdepartment, Jodhpurdepartment, Jodhpur
High Court
02 Aug 2024 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · rhcjodh240618
Parties
Pustikar Laghu Vyaparik Pratishhan Bachat Evam Sakh Sahkarisimiti Ltd., Jodhpur v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Taxdepartment, Jodhpurdepartment, Jodhpur
Date of order
02 Aug 2024
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Pustikar Laghu Vyaparik Pratishhan Bachat Evam Sakh Sahkarisimiti Ltd., Jodhpur v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Taxdepartment, Jodhpurdepartment, Jodhpur, the High Court (2024) allowed the appeal under Section 80P of the Income-tax Act. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: (III) The appellate order for the assessment year 2007-08(Annexure P-8), the appellate order for the assessment year 2010-11 (Annexure P-16) and Appellate order for the assessmentyear 2011-12 (Annexure P-24) maybe quashed and set aside.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6942/2015
Pustikar Laghu Vyaparik Pratishhan Bachat Evam Sakh SahkariSimiti Ltd., Jodhpur through its Chief Executive OfficerAmarchand Prohit s/o Shri Shyam Sundar Purohit, aged about 71years, r/o 4-F-71 New Power House Road, Jodhpur,
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Income TaxDepartment, JodhpurDepartment, Jodhpur
2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Income Tax Department,JodhpurJodhpur
3. The Branch Manager, Jodhpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd,Branch Nai Sarak, Jodhpur Branch Nai Sarak, Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)For Respondent(s)
: Mrs. Abhilasha Bora: Mr. K.K. Bissa
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
02/08/2024
The Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioner with
the following prayer :-
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the writpetition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed and -(I) The order of attachment notice dated 30-06-15 No. ITO/W-1(5)/JU/2015-16 (Annexure P-31) given to the Branch Manager,Jodhpur Central Cooperative Barnk Ltd, Nai Sarak Branch, byIncome Tax Officer, Ward 1(5) maybe quashed.(I) The order of attachment notice dated 30-06-15 No. ITO/W-1(5)/JU/2015-16 (Annexure P-31) given to the Branch Manager,Jodhpur Central Cooperative Barnk Ltd, Nai Sarak Branch, byIncome Tax Officer, Ward 1(5) maybe quashed.
(II) The assessment order for the year 2007-08 (Annexure P-6),the assessment order for the year 2010-11(Annexure P-14) andassessment order for the year 2011-12 (Annexure P-22) may bequashed and set aside.
(III) The appellate order for the assessment year 2007-08(Annexure P-8), the appellate order for the assessment year
2010-11 (Annexure P-16) and Appellate order for the assessmentyear 2011-12 (Annexure P-24) maybe quashed and set aside.
(IV) Any other appropriate order or direction which may bedeemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of thecase may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”
2.Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that during
pendency of the present writ petition, the Income Tax AppellateTribunal Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur vide its order dated 15[th] March2016 passed in ITA Nos.146 to 149/JODH/2015 has set aside theorder of the Assessing Authority and directed the AssessingAuthority to allow deduction to the petitioner under section 80P ofthe Act.
3.In view of the aforesaid submission made at Bar by learnedcounsel for the parties, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6942/2015stands allowed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
(SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J
33-Ajaysingh/-
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.