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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

delay and condone the same. 5 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ITA No. 202/RPR/2023 & 6 others 4. Briefly stated, the assessee which is a primary agricultural co- operative society engaged in the business of banking, paddy procurement, sale of fertilizer, seeds, manures and pesticides as well as sale of controlled items under the Public Distribution System

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

delay and condone the same. 5 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ITA No. 202/RPR/2023 & 6 others 4. Briefly stated, the assessee which is a primary agricultural co- operative society engaged in the business of banking, paddy procurement, sale of fertilizer, seeds, manures and pesticides as well as sale of controlled items under the Public Distribution System

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

delay and condone the same. 5 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ITA No. 202/RPR/2023 & 6 others 4. Briefly stated, the assessee which is a primary agricultural co- operative society engaged in the business of banking, paddy procurement, sale of fertilizer, seeds, manures and pesticides as well as sale of controlled items under the Public Distribution System

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

delay and condone the same. 5 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ITA No. 202/RPR/2023 & 6 others 4. Briefly stated, the assessee which is a primary agricultural co- operative society engaged in the business of banking, paddy procurement, sale of fertilizer, seeds, manures and pesticides as well as sale of controlled items under the Public Distribution System

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

delay and condone the same. 5 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ITA No. 202/RPR/2023 & 6 others 4. Briefly stated, the assessee which is a primary agricultural co- operative society engaged in the business of banking, paddy procurement, sale of fertilizer, seeds, manures and pesticides as well as sale of controlled items under the Public Distribution System

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

delay and condone the same. 5 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ITA No. 202/RPR/2023 & 6 others 4. Briefly stated, the assessee which is a primary agricultural co- operative society engaged in the business of banking, paddy procurement, sale of fertilizer, seeds, manures and pesticides as well as sale of controlled items under the Public Distribution System

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

delay and condone the same. 5 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ITA No. 202/RPR/2023 & 6 others 4. Briefly stated, the assessee which is a primary agricultural co- operative society engaged in the business of banking, paddy procurement, sale of fertilizer, seeds, manures and pesticides as well as sale of controlled items under the Public Distribution System

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

delay of 97 days involved in the captioned appeal is condoned. 4. The relevant facts in this case are that the assessee is a primary agriculture credit society and is providing loan facility to its members. It is also providing PDS and fertilizer items to its members. The first disallowance was made by the A.O u/s.80P(2

ADIM JATI SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, DHORRA,GARIYABAND vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 25/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhorra Ground Floor, Main Road Dhorra, Gariyaband(C.G)-493889 Pan: Aabaa7991C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle 1(1) Revenue Building, Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.)-492001 ……""यथ" / Respondent

section which kindly be allowed. 3 5. That under the facts and the law the Ld.CIT (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi further erred in confirming the rejection of claim of the appellant for deduction of commission income earned at Rs. 2,73,661 u/s. 80P(2). Prayed that the above income is deductible u/s. 80P(2). 6.That Under the facts

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

80P of the Act. 6. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. As is discernible from the records, the assessee society despite having been given sufficient opportunity had failed to avail the same and did not put up an appearance in the course of the proceedings before the first appellate authority

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

80P of the Act. 6. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. As is discernible from the records, the assessee society despite having been given sufficient opportunity had failed to avail the same and did not put up an appearance in the course of the proceedings before the first appellate authority

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

80P of the Act. 6. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. As is discernible from the records, the assessee society despite having been given sufficient opportunity had failed to avail the same and did not put up an appearance in the course of the proceedings before the first appellate authority

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

80P of the Act. 6. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. As is discernible from the records, the assessee society despite having been given sufficient opportunity had failed to avail the same and did not put up an appearance in the course of the proceedings before the first appellate authority

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

80P of the Act. 6. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. As is discernible from the records, the assessee society despite having been given sufficient opportunity had failed to avail the same and did not put up an appearance in the course of the proceedings before the first appellate authority

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

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

80P of the Act. 6. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. As is discernible from the records, the assessee society despite having been given sufficient opportunity had failed to avail the same and did not put up an appearance in the course of the proceedings before the first appellate authority

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

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

80P of the Act. 6. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. As is discernible from the records, the assessee society despite having been given sufficient opportunity had failed to avail the same and did not put up an appearance in the course of the proceedings before the first appellate authority

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

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

80P of the Act. 6. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. As is discernible from the records, the assessee society despite having been given sufficient opportunity had failed to avail the same and did not put up an appearance in the course of the proceedings before the first appellate authority

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

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

80P of the Act. 6. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. As is discernible from the records, the assessee society despite having been given sufficient opportunity had failed to avail the same and did not put up an appearance in the course of the proceedings before the first appellate authority

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

80P of the Act. 6. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. As is discernible from the records, the assessee society despite having been given sufficient opportunity had failed to avail the same and did not put up an appearance in the course of the proceedings before the first appellate authority