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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

section which kindly be allowed. 2. That under the facts and the law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in treating the surplus of PDS business amounting to Rs.22,649/- 3 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ITA Nos. 87 to 89 / RPR/2023 without allowing proportionate expenses of Rs.1,43,930/- as ineligible deduction u/s.80P(2). Prayed that the exemption u/s 80P

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

section which kindly be allowed. 2. That under the facts and the law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in treating the surplus of PDS business amounting to Rs.22,649/- 3 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ITA Nos. 87 to 89 / RPR/2023 without allowing proportionate expenses of Rs.1,43,930/- as ineligible deduction u/s.80P(2). Prayed that the exemption u/s 80P

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, LAWAN,BALODA BAZAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHATAPARA, BALODA BAZAR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

TDS on commission received on paddy procurement business, as under: Sl. Particulars Amount in Rs. No. 1. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.15,44,096/- deduction of interest income u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 2. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.6,81,955/- deduction of profit from paddy procurement business u/s. 80P(2

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: Sl. Particulars Amount in Rs. No. 1. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.15,44,096/- deduction of interest income u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 2. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.6,81,955/- deduction of profit from paddy procurement business u/s. 80P(2

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

TDS on commission received on paddy procurement business, as under: Sl. Particulars Amount in Rs. No. 1. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.15,44,096/- deduction of interest income u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 2. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.6,81,955/- deduction of profit from paddy procurement business u/s. 80P(2

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

TDS on commission received on paddy procurement business, as under: Sl. Particulars Amount in Rs. No. 1. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.15,44,096/- deduction of interest income u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 2. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.6,81,955/- deduction of profit from paddy procurement business u/s. 80P(2

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, LAWAN,BALODA BAZAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHATAPARA, BALODA BAZAR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

TDS on commission received on paddy procurement business, as under: Sl. Particulars Amount in Rs. No. 1. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.15,44,096/- deduction of interest income u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 2. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.6,81,955/- deduction of profit from paddy procurement business u/s. 80P(2

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, LAWAN,BALODA BAZAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHATAPARA, BALODA BAZAR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

TDS on commission received on paddy procurement business, as under: Sl. Particulars Amount in Rs. No. 1. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.15,44,096/- deduction of interest income u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 2. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.6,81,955/- deduction of profit from paddy procurement business u/s. 80P(2

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, LAWAN,BALODA BAZAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHATAPARA, BALODA BAZAR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

TDS on commission received on paddy procurement business, as under: Sl. Particulars Amount in Rs. No. 1. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.15,44,096/- deduction of interest income u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 2. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.6,81,955/- deduction of profit from paddy procurement business u/s. 80P(2

SHRI DURGA GRAM SERVICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED MERHANA,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD BILASPUR, BILASPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.535/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Durga Gram Service Co-Operative Society Limited Village: Merhana Ghumarwin, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh-174 028 Pan: Aagas5856D

TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, after relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur (supra) had held that a justice oriented and liberal approach be adopted while considering the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. That in the recent judgment

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, BHENDRI ,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

TDS debited to Paddy account whereas the assessee society had already added the same in computation of total income hence the same may be deleted. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred in completing the appellate proceedings without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant, which is against the principle of natural justice. 3. The appellant

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, KODEBOD,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

TDS debited to Paddy account whereas the assessee society had already added the same in computation of total income hence the same may be deleted. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred in completing the appellate proceedings without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant, which is against the principle of natural justice. 3. The appellant

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, KODEBOD,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

TDS debited to Paddy account whereas the assessee society had already added the same in computation of total income hence the same may be deleted. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred in completing the appellate proceedings without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant, which is against the principle of natural justice. 3. The appellant

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, DOMA,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

TDS debited to Paddy account whereas the assessee society had already added the same in computation of total income hence the same may be deleted. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred in completing the appellate proceedings without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant, which is against the principle of natural justice. 3. The appellant

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, DOMA,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

TDS debited to Paddy account whereas the assessee society had already added the same in computation of total income hence the same may be deleted. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred in completing the appellate proceedings without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant, which is against the principle of natural justice. 3. The appellant

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, DOMA,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

TDS debited to Paddy account whereas the assessee society had already added the same in computation of total income hence the same may be deleted. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred in completing the appellate proceedings without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant, which is against the principle of natural justice. 3. The appellant

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, DOMA,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

TDS debited to Paddy account whereas the assessee society had already added the same in computation of total income hence the same may be deleted. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred in completing the appellate proceedings without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant, which is against the principle of natural justice. 3. The appellant

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, BHAKHARA, KURUD,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

TDS debited to Paddy account whereas the assessee society had already added the same in computation of total income hence the same may be deleted. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred in completing the appellate proceedings without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant, which is against the principle of natural justice. 3. The appellant

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, DONAR,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

TDS debited to Paddy account whereas the assessee society had already added the same in computation of total income hence the same may be deleted. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred in completing the appellate proceedings without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant, which is against the principle of natural justice. 3. The appellant