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

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is applicable, disallowance of Rs.5,67,426/- (instead Rs.12,24,880 taken while computing income) being 35% of Rs.16,21,218/- be deleted. 3. PDS Business: - That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,38,228/- which is gross profit in PDS a/c. made by the Ld. AO. Prayed that

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

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is applicable, disallowance of Rs.5,67,426/- (instead Rs.12,24,880 taken while computing income) being 35% of Rs.16,21,218/- be deleted. 3. PDS Business: - That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,38,228/- which is gross profit in PDS a/c. made by the Ld. AO. Prayed that

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is applicable, disallowance of Rs.5,67,426/- (instead Rs.12,24,880 taken while computing income) being 35% of Rs.16,21,218/- be deleted. 3. PDS Business: - That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,38,228/- which is gross profit in PDS a/c. made by the Ld. AO. Prayed that

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is applicable, disallowance of Rs.5,67,426/- (instead Rs.12,24,880 taken while computing income) being 35% of Rs.16,21,218/- be deleted. 3. PDS Business: - That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,38,228/- which is gross profit in PDS a/c. made by the Ld. AO. Prayed that

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

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is applicable, disallowance of Rs.5,67,426/- (instead Rs.12,24,880 taken while computing income) being 35% of Rs.16,21,218/- be deleted. 3. PDS Business: - That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,38,228/- which is gross profit in PDS a/c. made by the Ld. AO. Prayed that

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

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is applicable, disallowance of Rs.5,67,426/- (instead Rs.12,24,880 taken while computing income) being 35% of Rs.16,21,218/- be deleted. 3. PDS Business: - That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,38,228/- which is gross profit in PDS a/c. made by the Ld. AO. Prayed that

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is applicable, disallowance of Rs.5,67,426/- (instead Rs.12,24,880 taken while computing income) being 35% of Rs.16,21,218/- be deleted. 3. PDS Business: - That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,38,228/- which is gross profit in PDS a/c. made by the Ld. AO. Prayed that

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

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is applicable, disallowance of Rs.5,67,426/- (instead Rs.12,24,880 taken while computing income) being 35% of Rs.16,21,218/- be deleted. 3. PDS Business: - That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,38,228/- which is gross profit in PDS a/c. made by the Ld. AO. Prayed 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

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is applicable, disallowance of Rs.5,67,426/- (instead Rs.12,24,880 taken while computing income) being 35% of Rs.16,21,218/- be deleted. 3. PDS Business: - That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,38,228/- which is gross profit in PDS a/c. made by the Ld. AO. Prayed 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

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is applicable, disallowance of Rs.5,67,426/- (instead Rs.12,24,880 taken while computing income) being 35% of Rs.16,21,218/- be deleted. 3. PDS Business: - That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,38,228/- which is gross profit in PDS a/c. made by the Ld. AO. Prayed 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

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is applicable, disallowance of Rs.5,67,426/- (instead Rs.12,24,880 taken while computing income) being 35% of Rs.16,21,218/- be deleted. 3. PDS Business: - That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,38,228/- which is gross profit in PDS a/c. made by the Ld. AO. Prayed that

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

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is applicable, disallowance of Rs.5,67,426/- (instead Rs.12,24,880 taken while computing income) being 35% of Rs.16,21,218/- be deleted. 3. PDS Business: - That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,38,228/- which is gross profit in PDS a/c. made by the Ld. AO. Prayed that

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is applicable, disallowance of Rs.5,67,426/- (instead Rs.12,24,880 taken while computing income) being 35% of Rs.16,21,218/- be deleted. 3. PDS Business: - That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,38,228/- which is gross profit in PDS a/c. made by the Ld. AO. Prayed that

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is applicable, disallowance of Rs.5,67,426/- (instead Rs.12,24,880 taken while computing income) being 35% of Rs.16,21,218/- be deleted. 3. PDS Business: - That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,38,228/- which is gross profit in PDS a/c. made by the Ld. AO. Prayed that

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)

section 80P(1) of the Act. In fact similar view is taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III HYDERABAD v. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. Reported in (2011) 200 TAXMAN 220/12. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the appellate authorities denying the benefit of deduction

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)

section 80P(1) of the Act. In fact similar view is taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III HYDERABAD v. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. Reported in (2011) 200 TAXMAN 220/12. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the appellate authorities denying the benefit of deduction

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)

section 80P(1) of the Act. In fact similar view is taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III HYDERABAD v. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. Reported in (2011) 200 TAXMAN 220/12. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the appellate authorities denying the benefit of deduction

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)

section 80P(1) of the Act. In fact similar view is taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III HYDERABAD v. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. Reported in (2011) 200 TAXMAN 220/12. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the appellate authorities denying the benefit of deduction