GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKRI SAMITI MARYADIT, DHARSIWA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

TDS on commission received on paddy procurement business, as under: 4 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ITA Nos. 87 to 89 / RPR/2023 Sl. No. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.36,222/- deduction of interest income u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 2. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.22

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI (MARYADIT), GAURBHAT,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

TDS on commission received on paddy procurement business, as under: 4 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ITA Nos. 87 to 89 / RPR/2023 Sl. No. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.36,222/- deduction of interest income u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 2. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.22

THE GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3), Vill. Mohda Tilda, Aaykar Bhavan, Raipur, Civil Lines, Raipur (Cg). Raipur, Pan: Aaaag9755H Raipur (Cg).

b) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Banking is “the accepting for the purpose of lending or investment of deposits of money from the public repayable on demand or otherwise and withdrawable by cheque draft or otherwise,” and according to the section 6 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 the business a bank can carry on are summarized into three

GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS on the commission received from paddy procurement business as an expenditure, then, no addition on the said count would be called for in its hands. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 (iii) raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Adverting to the assessee’s claim for deduction under Sec. 80P

GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS on the commission received from paddy procurement business as an expenditure, then, no addition on the said count would be called for in its hands. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 (iii) raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Adverting to the assessee’s claim for deduction under Sec. 80P

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, VILLAGE: TAMASEONI,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS on the commission received from paddy procurement business as an expenditure, then, no addition on the said count would be called for in its hands. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 (iii) raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Adverting to the assessee’s claim for deduction under Sec. 80P

GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS on the commission received from paddy procurement business as an expenditure, then, no addition on the said count would be called for in its hands. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 (iii) raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Adverting to the assessee’s claim for deduction under Sec. 80P

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,VILL: POND DIST: RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(1), RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS on the commission received from paddy procurement business as an expenditure, then, no addition on the said count would be called for in its hands. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 (iii) raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Adverting to the assessee’s claim for deduction under Sec. 80P

GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS on the commission received from paddy procurement business as an expenditure, then, no addition on the said count would be called for in its hands. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 (iii) raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Adverting to the assessee’s claim for deduction under Sec. 80P

GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS on the commission received from paddy procurement business as an expenditure, then, no addition on the said count would be called for in its hands. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 (iii) raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Adverting to the assessee’s claim for deduction under Sec. 80P

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,VILL: RISDA, DIST: BALODA BAZAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHATAPARA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS on the commission received from paddy procurement business as an expenditure, then, no addition on the said count would be called for in its hands. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 (iii) raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Adverting to the assessee’s claim for deduction under Sec. 80P

GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS on the commission received from paddy procurement business as an expenditure, then, no addition on the said count would be called for in its hands. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 (iii) raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Adverting to the assessee’s claim for deduction under Sec. 80P

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,VILL: SIRIYADIH, DISTT: BALODABAZAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHATAPARA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS on the commission received from paddy procurement business as an expenditure, then, no addition on the said count would be called for in its hands. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 (iii) raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Adverting to the assessee’s claim for deduction under Sec. 80P

GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS on the commission received from paddy procurement business as an expenditure, then, no addition on the said count would be called for in its hands. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 (iii) raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Adverting to the assessee’s claim for deduction under Sec. 80P

GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS on the commission received from paddy procurement business as an expenditure, then, no addition on the said count would be called for in its hands. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 (iii) raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Adverting to the assessee’s claim for deduction under Sec. 80P

GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS on the commission received from paddy procurement business as an expenditure, then, no addition on the said count would be called for in its hands. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 (iii) raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Adverting to the assessee’s claim for deduction under Sec. 80P

THE GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS on the commission received from paddy procurement business as an expenditure, then, no addition on the said count would be called for in its hands. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 (iii) raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Adverting to the assessee’s claim for deduction under Sec. 80P

GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS on the commission received from paddy procurement business as an expenditure, then, no addition on the said count would be called for in its hands. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 (iii) raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Adverting to the assessee’s claim for deduction under Sec. 80P

GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS on the commission received from paddy procurement business as an expenditure, then, no addition on the said count would be called for in its hands. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 (iii) raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Adverting to the assessee’s claim for deduction under Sec. 80P