INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, CHHINDWARA vs. M. P. RASTRIYA KOYLA KHADAN MAJDOOR SANGH COLLIERY EMPLOYEE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, CHHINDWARA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‘Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

1) at Rs. 13,76,224, while the Assessing Officer (AO) has disallowed, in addition thereto, rs. 7,49,40,575, being the interest on bank deposits, duly credited to it‘s Profit & Loss Account (PB pgs. 15-16). How could that be, i.e., the disallowance exceeding the deduction claimed which, being qua income

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

1. “The learned, AO as well as the CIT Appeal have erred in law and on facts of the case in disallowing the benefit of section 80P

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-KATNI, KATNI vs. M/S. GAJRAJ MINING PVT. L:TD., SINGRAULI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

1) of section 36; 54[(d) "co-operative bank", "primary agricultural credit society" and "primary co- operative agricultural and rural development bank" shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Explanation to sub - section (4) of section 80P.] 14. We find that, the ld. CIT(A) held that, Section 43B are applicable in the case where

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), JABALPUR, JABALPUR vs. SHAKTI MAHILA SANGH BAHU-UDDESHIYA SAHKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, MAJHOLI

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Ward- Vs Shakti Mahila Sangh Bahu-Uddeshiya 1(1), Jabalpur, M.P. Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Majholi Pan:Aafas3026A (Appellant) (Respondent)

1,72,53,990/- was treated as commission income received against services provided as business correspondent and assessed under income from other sources of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the same, the assessee preferred an appeal to the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts and circumstances of the case held that the commission income

PRATH KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,LAMKANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Prath Krishi Sakh Sahakari V. Ito Ward-1(3) Samiti Maryadit Lamkana Annexe Building, Aayakar 01, Manjholi Jabalpur, Bhawan, Napier Town, Lamkana-483110. Jabalpur-482001. Pan:Aacap1804G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

section 80P of the Act without appreciating that in subsequent year it was duly allowed by the AO in the scrutiny assessment and also by CPC and hence disallowance in the year under consideration is bad in law. 7. The appellant craves for leave to amend, add to or omit any ground up to the time of hearing

BHARATKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Brahtakar Krishi Sakh Ito Ward-2(5) V. Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Annexe Building Aayakar 01, Barela Jabalpur-482001. Bhawan, Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001. Pan:Aabab4581D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80P of the act without appreciating that in subsequent year it was duly allowed and hence disallowance in the year under consideration is bad in law. Page 2 of 4 5. The appellant craves for leave to amend, add to or omit any ground up to the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. The facts giving rise

PRATHMIK KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT ,JERATH vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD , NARSINGHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 Prathmik Krishi Sakh V. Ito Ward Narsinghpur Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Income Tax Office, Jerath Trimurti Nagar, Housing Gram Jerath, Pathariya, Board Colony, Damoh-470661. Narsinghpur-487001. Pan:Aabap7893E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 20 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

80P deduction. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the action of AO in making addition of Rs.12695/on account of: income from other source being interest received from bank without appreciating the facts that appellant society is in loss and no addition is called for. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal

PARTH KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SEHORA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD1(3), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section and qualifies for the deduction u/s 80P of the Act. Since the assessee had not filed the required documents and explanation, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee and added to the total income of the assessee. In the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A), since there was no representation from the assessee’s side