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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer. 5. Assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. At the very outset

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer. 5. Assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. At the very outset

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer. 5. Assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. At the very outset

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer. 5. Assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. At the very outset

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer. 5. Assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. At the very outset

THE GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,BALODA BAZAR(C.G0 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3), RAIPUR (CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer. 5. Assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. At the very outset

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer. 5. Assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. At the very outset

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer. 5. Assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. At the very outset

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

4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer. 5. Assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. At the very outset

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

4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer. 5. Assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. At the very outset

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer. 5. Assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. At the very outset

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

4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer. 5. Assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. At the very outset

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

4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer. 5. Assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. At the very outset

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

4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer. 5. Assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. At the very outset

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1, RAIPUR vs. M/S. CHHATTISGARH STEEL & POWER LIMITED, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 96/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

255 Taxman 171 the hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP against the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in this case reported in 248 Taxman 449 where the hon'ble Gujarat High Court had held that where the assessee had its surplus fund against which investments was made, no question of making any disallowance of expenditure

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

255 being miscellaneous income & entry fee, which is clearly eligible for the deduction u/s.80P(2)(d). 2. The appellant craves leave to add, urge, alter, modify and withdraw any ground/grounds before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Briefly stated, the assessee which is a primary agricultural co- operative society engaged in the business of banking, paddy

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

255 being miscellaneous income & entry fee, which is clearly eligible for the deduction u/s.80P(2)(d). 2. The appellant craves leave to add, urge, alter, modify and withdraw any ground/grounds before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Briefly stated, the assessee which is a primary agricultural co- operative society engaged in the business of banking, paddy

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

255 being miscellaneous income & entry fee, which is clearly eligible for the deduction u/s.80P(2)(d). 2. The appellant craves leave to add, urge, alter, modify and withdraw any ground/grounds before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Briefly stated, the assessee which is a primary agricultural co- operative society engaged in the business of banking, paddy