BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

disallowed the net loss of Rs.27,488/- claimed by the assessee. A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 Brahtakar Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit 4. Aggrieved with the assessment orders, the assessee went in appeal to the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) records that even though in Form No.35 for the A.Y. 2013- 14 stated that written grounds

JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK KARAMCHARI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI,SATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, KATNI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalejila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Vs National E Karamchari Sakh Sahkari Assessment Samiti Maryadit Satna, Center, Income Tax Sahkar Bhawan, Behind Department, New Green Talkies, Pushpraj Delhi Colony, Satna (M.P)-485001. Acit, Katni (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabaj4497Q Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

disallowed by Assessing Officer & 7 | P a g e confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) by relying upon decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of principle Ld.CIT Vs. Totgar’s Co-Operative Sales Society Ltd. 7. Issue as to the allow-ability of the deduction claimed by the Assessee

M/S RPJ MINERALS PVT. LTD ,MAIHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1,SATNA, SATNA

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance, but had no objection to the matter being sent back for verification of facts. 9. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the orders of the lower authorities. We have also had occasion to go through the orders cited by the lower authorities while rendering their decision and before we adjudicate on the issue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), JABALPUR vs. M/S MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK PODDAR COLONY, SAGAR

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesan & Sanjay Aroraassessment Year 2015-16

section 36(1)(v) of the Act. The ld. Representative also submitted that right from 2013, this Tribunal allowed a similar payment to the gratuity fund and CIT(A) by following the order of this Tribunal deleted the addition made by ITA No. 137/JAB/18 & C.O. 04/JAB/2020 Madhyanchal Gramin Bank 3 Assessing Officer. Therefore, there is no substance in the appeal