M/S. G.P. INFRAVENTURES ,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), RAIPUR

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.76/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), V M/S G.P. Infraventures, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, S Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) : (""यथ" / Respondent) (Ita No.94/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.P. Infraventures, V Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, S Raipur Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 23.11.2023 7Pronouncement

section 40A (3) is clearly attracted? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,42,85,000/- by way of disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act on account of amount paid towards purchase of land which is stock-in trade of the assessee

CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. Executive Director (Fin.), Csptcl, Second Floor, Sldc Building, Cseb Office Campus, Danginiya Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5773E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowance made by the A.O of the assessee’s claim for deprecation on the assets which the assessee company had received consequent upon restructuring/reorganization of erstwhile CSEB, i.e. by calculating the same on the WDV that was lastly shown by CSEB for each 7 Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. ITA No.81/RPR/2020 block of assets, and which thereafter were ultimately

CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. Executive Director (Fin.), Csptcl, Second Floor, Sldc Building, Cseb Office Campus, Danginiya Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5773E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowance made by the A.O of the assessee’s claim for deprecation on the assets which the assessee company had received consequent upon restructuring/reorganization of erstwhile CSEB, i.e. by calculating the same on the WDV that was lastly shown by CSEB for each 7 Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. ITA No.81/RPR/2020 block of assets, and which thereafter were ultimately

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), RAIPUR vs. MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC VISHWAVIDYALAYA, JABALPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.139 To 142/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Years: 2009-2010 To 2012-2013) Acit (Exemption), Raipur Vs Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya, University Building, Lamti, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur(M.P.) Pan No. :Aaajm 1070 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) & Cross Objection Nos.09 To 12/Rpr/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.139 To 142/Rpr/2019) (Assessment Year :2009-2010 To 2012-2013) Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vs Acit (Exemption), Raipur Vishwavidyalaya, University Building, Lamti, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur(M.P.) Pan No. :Aaajm 1070 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Arun Grover & Asheesh Ternain, Cas नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

7 ITA Nos.139-142/RPR/19 & CO Nos.09-12/RPR/19 Section 12A(2) inserted by the Finance No.2 Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2014 available to the assessee retrospectively, was misinterpreted by not reading this provision in its entirety while the proviso to the amendment itself shows that, “provisions contained in the first and second proviso shall not apply in case of any trust or institution which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), RAIPUR vs. MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC VISHWAVIDYALAYA, JABALPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.139 To 142/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Years: 2009-2010 To 2012-2013) Acit (Exemption), Raipur Vs Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya, University Building, Lamti, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur(M.P.) Pan No. :Aaajm 1070 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) & Cross Objection Nos.09 To 12/Rpr/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.139 To 142/Rpr/2019) (Assessment Year :2009-2010 To 2012-2013) Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vs Acit (Exemption), Raipur Vishwavidyalaya, University Building, Lamti, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur(M.P.) Pan No. :Aaajm 1070 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Arun Grover & Asheesh Ternain, Cas नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

7 ITA Nos.139-142/RPR/19 & CO Nos.09-12/RPR/19 Section 12A(2) inserted by the Finance No.2 Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2014 available to the assessee retrospectively, was misinterpreted by not reading this provision in its entirety while the proviso to the amendment itself shows that, “provisions contained in the first and second proviso shall not apply in case of any trust or institution which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), RAIPUR vs. MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC VISHWAVIDYALAYA, JABALPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.139 To 142/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Years: 2009-2010 To 2012-2013) Acit (Exemption), Raipur Vs Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya, University Building, Lamti, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur(M.P.) Pan No. :Aaajm 1070 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) & Cross Objection Nos.09 To 12/Rpr/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.139 To 142/Rpr/2019) (Assessment Year :2009-2010 To 2012-2013) Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vs Acit (Exemption), Raipur Vishwavidyalaya, University Building, Lamti, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur(M.P.) Pan No. :Aaajm 1070 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Arun Grover & Asheesh Ternain, Cas नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

7 ITA Nos.139-142/RPR/19 & CO Nos.09-12/RPR/19 Section 12A(2) inserted by the Finance No.2 Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2014 available to the assessee retrospectively, was misinterpreted by not reading this provision in its entirety while the proviso to the amendment itself shows that, “provisions contained in the first and second proviso shall not apply in case of any trust or institution which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), RAIPUR vs. MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC VISHWAVIDYALAYA, JABALPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.139 To 142/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Years: 2009-2010 To 2012-2013) Acit (Exemption), Raipur Vs Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya, University Building, Lamti, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur(M.P.) Pan No. :Aaajm 1070 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) & Cross Objection Nos.09 To 12/Rpr/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.139 To 142/Rpr/2019) (Assessment Year :2009-2010 To 2012-2013) Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vs Acit (Exemption), Raipur Vishwavidyalaya, University Building, Lamti, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur(M.P.) Pan No. :Aaajm 1070 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Arun Grover & Asheesh Ternain, Cas नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

7 ITA Nos.139-142/RPR/19 & CO Nos.09-12/RPR/19 Section 12A(2) inserted by the Finance No.2 Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2014 available to the assessee retrospectively, was misinterpreted by not reading this provision in its entirety while the proviso to the amendment itself shows that, “provisions contained in the first and second proviso shall not apply in case of any trust or institution which

CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER GENERATION CO. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of stale cheques of Rs.9,75,363/- by relying on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Sundram Iyenger & Sons Ltd. 222 ITR 344. 3. That

THE CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER GENERATION COMPANY LIMITED, RAIPUR,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(2),RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of stale cheques of Rs.9,75,363/- by relying on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Sundram Iyenger & Sons Ltd. 222 ITR 344. 3. That

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

7. Adverting to the disallowance of 35% of the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) of its income of Rs. 16,21,218/- qua the Paddy Procurement business, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the said disallowance was excessive, considering the fact that the assessee had mainly procured paddy from its members only. Elaborating

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

7. Adverting to the disallowance of 35% of the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) of its income of Rs. 16,21,218/- qua the Paddy Procurement business, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the said disallowance was excessive, considering the fact that the assessee had mainly procured paddy from its members only. Elaborating

THE SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITIT MARYADIT,JOSHILAMATI,RAJNANDGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -1,, RAJNANDGAON

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

7. Adverting to the disallowance of 35% of the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) of its income of Rs. 16,21,218/- qua the Paddy Procurement business, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the said disallowance was excessive, considering the fact that the assessee had mainly procured paddy from its members only. Elaborating

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

7. Adverting to the disallowance of 35% of the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) of its income of Rs. 16,21,218/- qua the Paddy Procurement business, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the said disallowance was excessive, considering the fact that the assessee had mainly procured paddy from its members only. Elaborating

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

7. Adverting to the disallowance of 35% of the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) of its income of Rs. 16,21,218/- qua the Paddy Procurement business, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the said disallowance was excessive, considering the fact that the assessee had mainly procured paddy from its members only. Elaborating

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

7. Adverting to the disallowance of 35% of the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) of its income of Rs. 16,21,218/- qua the Paddy Procurement business, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the said disallowance was excessive, considering the fact that the assessee had mainly procured paddy from its members only. Elaborating

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

7. Adverting to the disallowance of 35% of the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) of its income of Rs. 16,21,218/- qua the Paddy Procurement business, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the said disallowance was excessive, considering the fact that the assessee had mainly procured paddy from its members only. Elaborating

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

7. Adverting to the disallowance of 35% of the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) of its income of Rs. 16,21,218/- qua the Paddy Procurement business, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the said disallowance was excessive, considering the fact that the assessee had mainly procured paddy from its members only. Elaborating

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

7. Adverting to the disallowance of 35% of the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) of its income of Rs. 16,21,218/- qua the Paddy Procurement business, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the said disallowance was excessive, considering the fact that the assessee had mainly procured paddy from its members only. Elaborating

THE SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITIT MARYADIT,SOMNI,RAJNANDGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-2, RAJNANDGAON

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

7. Adverting to the disallowance of 35% of the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) of its income of Rs. 16,21,218/- qua the Paddy Procurement business, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the said disallowance was excessive, considering the fact that the assessee had mainly procured paddy from its members only. Elaborating