M/S. D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed which was, in turn, confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, the instant appeal before us. 25. We have heard the submissions made by the respective parties. We have also perused the relevant materials available on record. ITA Nos.27/RJT/2016& 360,315/Rjt/2015 A.Y.2011-12,2012-13 It is the case of the assessee that the advance paid to the said Manjeet

M/S CHOKSHI VACHHRAJ MAKANJI & CO.,JUNAGADH vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE - 1 (1), RAJKOT - GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

209/[2023] 198 ITD 322 (Pune - Trib.) held that where assessee- employer deposited amount of employees contribution towards employees' provident fund and employees' state insurance corporation beyond due date M/s. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Company vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2017-18 stipulated in respective Acts, disallowance made under section

GODHAVADAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,GODHAVADAR, LILIYA MOTA, AMRELI-365535 vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

sections wherein the disallowance can be made u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act are provided within it and as such the deduction u/s SOP of the Act is not mentioned is not mentioned in the sub-clause, therefore, the denial of deduction by the AO-CPC for the impugned A.Y. 209

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (2), RAJKOT vs. SHRI NARENDRA NANJIBHAI DAVDA, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance to the tune of Rs. 28,45,800/- on account of bad debts written off during the year. 22. The brief facts leading to the case is this that at the appellant paid the impugned amount as tender deposit for supply of sesame seeds to one Korea Agro Fisheries Trade Corporation which became non refundable as the appellant were

THE DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT MEENABEN H LAKHANI, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance to the tune of Rs. 28,45,800/- on account of bad debts written off during the year. 22. The brief facts leading to the case is this that at the appellant paid the impugned amount as tender deposit for supply of sesame seeds to one Korea Agro Fisheries Trade Corporation which became non refundable as the appellant were

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. DRB COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance to the tune of Rs. 28,45,800/- on account of bad debts written off during the year. 22. The brief facts leading to the case is this that at the appellant paid the impugned amount as tender deposit for supply of sesame seeds to one Korea Agro Fisheries Trade Corporation which became non refundable as the appellant were

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S DML EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance to the tune of Rs. 28,45,800/- on account of bad debts written off during the year. 22. The brief facts leading to the case is this that at the appellant paid the impugned amount as tender deposit for supply of sesame seeds to one Korea Agro Fisheries Trade Corporation which became non refundable as the appellant were

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. D.M.L. WORLD TRADE PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance to the tune of Rs. 28,45,800/- on account of bad debts written off during the year. 22. The brief facts leading to the case is this that at the appellant paid the impugned amount as tender deposit for supply of sesame seeds to one Korea Agro Fisheries Trade Corporation which became non refundable as the appellant were

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. DRB COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance to the tune of Rs. 28,45,800/- on account of bad debts written off during the year. 22. The brief facts leading to the case is this that at the appellant paid the impugned amount as tender deposit for supply of sesame seeds to one Korea Agro Fisheries Trade Corporation which became non refundable as the appellant were

SHRI RAJKOT VISHASHRIMALI JAIN SAMAJ ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

209 ITR 63 to emphasis the point: "When the Legislature casts a duty on the assessee claiming certain benefit, to comply with requirements which are associated with such benefit, the assessee cannot get the benefit without doing his part of the duty. He cannot be allowed to say that

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

disallowed the claim of benefit for article 8 of the tax treaty by invoking provision of Article 24 stating that the provision of article 24 override the provision of Article 8 of the DTAA between India and Singapore as they limit the relief in cases of double non taxation of such income. 7. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

disallowed the claim of benefit for article 8 of the tax treaty by invoking provision of Article 24 stating that the provision of article 24 override the provision of Article 8 of the DTAA between India and Singapore as they limit the relief in cases of double non taxation of such income. 7. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee

M/S PREMJI VALJI & SONS,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 125/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 M/S Premji Valji & Sons, The Principal Commissioner Of “Kuvarjibhai Tower”, Vs. Income Tax, Palace Road, Rajkot-1, Rajkot. Rajkot. Pan: Aacfp7696K

209, page Nos. 214 to 216 and page Nos. 219 to 249 of the paper book where the reply of the assessee in response to the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act as mentioned above was placed. Thus, the learned AR contended that there cannot be A.Y. 2017-18 6 said that the assessment order is erroneous

SHRI KAMLESH DEORAJ JAIN,GANDHIDHAM KUTCHH vs. THE ITO WARD 1 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 62/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kamlesh Deoraj Jain Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Plot No 35-36, Devashish Gandhidham, Income Tax Vs. Sector-5 Gandhidham 370201 Office, Plot No.32, Sector No.3, Near Iffco Colony, Gandhidham-370 201 "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adopj1769Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

209 ITR 500 (Delhi HC), held that the appellate authorities (CIT-A and Tribunal) are empowered to examine the matter on merits, even if, the assessee had conceded earlier or admitted before the assessing officer to tax him at a higher rate. Therefore, we note that such estimated additions are subject to challenge and need to be supported by cogent