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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

d) of the Act. 4. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.1,66,716/- deduction u/s. 80P(2) of the Act. After making the aforesaid disallowances, the A.O vide his order u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 23.11.2019 assessed the total income of the assessee society at Rs. 2,45,216/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

d) of the Act. 4. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.1,66,716/- deduction u/s. 80P(2) of the Act. After making the aforesaid disallowances, the A.O vide his order u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 23.11.2019 assessed the total income of the assessee society at Rs. 2,45,216/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter

CHHATTISGARH SAHAKARI SAKH SAMITI MARYADIT, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No 284, 286 &

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.284,285,286,287/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year:2013-14,2017-18,2018-19,2020-21)

d). Yours Date- 03/11/2023 Milapchand Oswal Advocate 6. On the basis of aforesaid submissions (though having certain spelling errors but have been extracted as it is for the sake of authenticity), it was the prayer of Ld. AR that the disallowance made by the Ld. AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) was an erroneous application

CHHATTISGARH SAHAKARI SAKH SAMITI MARYADIT, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No 284, 286 &

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.284,285,286,287/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year:2013-14,2017-18,2018-19,2020-21)

d). Yours Date- 03/11/2023 Milapchand Oswal Advocate 6. On the basis of aforesaid submissions (though having certain spelling errors but have been extracted as it is for the sake of authenticity), it was the prayer of Ld. AR that the disallowance made by the Ld. AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) was an erroneous application

CHHATTISGARH SAHAKARI SAKH SAMITI MARYADIT, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No 284, 286 &

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.284,285,286,287/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year:2013-14,2017-18,2018-19,2020-21)

d). Yours Date- 03/11/2023 Milapchand Oswal Advocate 6. On the basis of aforesaid submissions (though having certain spelling errors but have been extracted as it is for the sake of authenticity), it was the prayer of Ld. AR that the disallowance made by the Ld. AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) was an erroneous application

CHHATTISGARH SAHAKARI SAKH SAMITI MARYADIT, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No 284, 286 &

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.284,285,286,287/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year:2013-14,2017-18,2018-19,2020-21)

d). Yours Date- 03/11/2023 Milapchand Oswal Advocate 6. On the basis of aforesaid submissions (though having certain spelling errors but have been extracted as it is for the sake of authenticity), it was the prayer of Ld. AR that the disallowance made by the Ld. AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) was an erroneous application

SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI SIRRI, ,BALOD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.109/Rpr/2026 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sewa Sahkari Samiti Sirri, Village & Post:Sirri, Tehsil Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattsigarh, 491221 Pan: Aagas8961H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act)? 5. In this scenario, I find that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pr. CIT V. Annasaheb Patil Mathadi Kamgar Sahakari Pathpedi Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 117 (SC) has held and observed that primary Agricultural Credit Societies cannot be termed as Co-operative Banks

VRIHTAKAR SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT SURGI,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.105/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19

80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’)? 5. In this scenario, I find that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Annasaheb Patil Mathadi Kamgar Sahakari Pathpedi Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 117 (SC) has held and observed that primary Agricultural Credit Societies cannot be termed as Co-operative Banks

SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI LATABOD,LATABOD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sewa Sahakari Samiti Latabod K-6, Anupam Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aahas1552M

80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’)? 5 Sewa Sahakari Samiti Latabod Vs. ITO, Exemption, Ward-1, Raipur (C.G.) In this scenario, I find that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pr. 5. CIT Vs. Annasaheb Patil Mathadi Kamgar Sahakari Pathpedi Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 117 (SC) has held and observed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. CHHATTISGARH RAJYA SAHAKARI AWAS SANGH (MARYADIT), RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 206/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Awas Sangh Maryadit C-191, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaaac5903F ……""यथ" / Respondent

d) of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O on the basis of his aforesaid observations, after allocating on a proportionate basis the expenditure debited in the profit & loss a/c to the extent attributable to interest income earned from banks other than cooperative banks, disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.80P of the Act of Rs.1