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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

80P of Rs. 2,29,065/-, for the reason that on verification of the respective incomes it was found that those were not eligible for deduction under the said section. Nothing has been placed on our record to point out any perversity in the findings of the AO. I, thus, am constrained to uphold the disallowance

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

80P of Rs. 2,29,065/-, for the reason that on verification of the respective incomes it was found that those were not eligible for deduction under the said section. Nothing has been placed on our record to point out any perversity in the findings of the AO. I, thus, am constrained to uphold the disallowance

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 (2) in computing the total income of the assessee .w.e.f. 1-4-1968. (2) The matter has been examined in light of the judicial decisions on this issue. In the case of CIT v. Nawanshahar central co-operative bank ltd.(2007) 160 taxman 48 the apex court held that the investment made by a banking concern are part

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 (2) in computing the total income of the assessee .w.e.f. 1-4-1968. (2) The matter has been examined in light of the judicial decisions on this issue. In the case of CIT v. Nawanshahar central co-operative bank ltd.(2007) 160 taxman 48 the apex court held that the investment made by a banking concern are part

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 (2) in computing the total income of the assessee .w.e.f. 1-4-1968. (2) The matter has been examined in light of the judicial decisions on this issue. In the case of CIT v. Nawanshahar central co-operative bank ltd.(2007) 160 taxman 48 the apex court held that the investment made by a banking concern are part

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 (2) in computing the total income of the assessee .w.e.f. 1-4-1968. (2) The matter has been examined in light of the judicial decisions on this issue. In the case of CIT v. Nawanshahar central co-operative bank ltd.(2007) 160 taxman 48 the apex court held that the investment made by a banking concern are part

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

section (4) of Sec. 80P was that the co- operative banks which were functioning at par with other banks would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(4) of the Act. Insofar the reliance placed by the Pr. CIT on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

section (4) of Sec. 80P was that the co- operative banks which were functioning at par with other banks would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(4) of the Act. Insofar the reliance placed by the Pr. CIT on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

section (4) of Sec. 80P was that the co- operative banks which were functioning at par with other banks would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(4) of the Act. Insofar the reliance placed by the Pr. CIT on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

section (4) of Sec. 80P was that the co- operative banks which were functioning at par with other banks would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(4) of the Act. Insofar the reliance placed by the Pr. CIT on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

section (4) of Sec. 80P was that the co- operative banks which were functioning at par with other banks would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(4) of the Act. Insofar the reliance placed by the Pr. CIT on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

section (4) of Sec. 80P was that the co- operative banks which were functioning at par with other banks would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(4) of the Act. Insofar the reliance placed by the Pr. CIT on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

section (4) of Sec. 80P was that the co- operative banks which were functioning at par with other banks would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(4) of the Act. Insofar the reliance placed by the Pr. CIT on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale

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.

disallowed u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. The A.O held of the Act, a Co- operative Credit that as per Section 80P

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

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in law as well as on facts, in sustain the disallowance

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

disallowed u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. The A.O held that as per Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, a Co-operative

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

section 80P(2)(d) deals with the eligible deduction in this behalf. 3. Any other ground that may be adduced at the time of hearing.” 2. On the basis of information received by the A.O. that though the assessee cooperative society had taxable income but had not filed its return of income for the year under consideration, the A.O. initiated

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

disallowance was made by the A.O u/s.80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) of Rs.1,68,101/-. It was observed by the A.O in the assessment order that the assessee is providing PDS and fertilizer at government rate to its member. That as per Section 80P

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