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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

237 read with Section 199 of the Act implies that only the recipient of the sum i.e. the payee would seek a refund. Therefore also, no tax is deductible under section 195 of the Act on commission payments and consequently the expenditure on export commission payable to a non-resident for services rendered outside India becomes allowable expenditure

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

237 read with Section 199 of the Act implies that only the recipient of the sum i.e. the payee would seek a refund. Therefore also, no tax is deductible under section 195 of the Act on commission payments and consequently the expenditure on export commission payable to a non-resident for services rendered outside India becomes allowable expenditure

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

237 read with Section 199 of the Act implies that only the recipient of the sum i.e. the payee would seek a refund. Therefore also, no tax is deductible under section 195 of the Act on commission payments and consequently the expenditure on export commission payable to a non-resident for services rendered outside India becomes allowable expenditure

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

237 read with Section 199 of the Act implies that only the recipient of the sum i.e. the payee would seek a refund. Therefore also, no tax is deductible under section 195 of the Act on commission payments and consequently the expenditure on export commission payable to a non-resident for services rendered outside India becomes allowable expenditure

CHAKARGADH SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,CHAKARGADH SEVA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT(CPC),, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

disallowed the deduction stating that the appellant is not entitled to deduction on the ground that the appellant filed the return of income beyond the due date mentioned in Sec. 139(1) of the Act. In this regard, Section 80AC of the Act is reproduced below:- Section 80AC Where in computing the total income of an assessee of any previous

SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK MANAGER (F & A), RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 37/Rjt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, Manager (F & A), Rajkot 1St Floor Wing 2, Lic Jeevan Prakash Building, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahas2116H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 142(1) of the Act and in response to the notice of the assessing officer, the assessee submitted, required details and documents before the assessing officer, therefore, assessing officer examined, the each and every issue raised by the ld.PCIT and applied his mind and thereafter framed the assessment order. Just because assessing officer framed the assessment order in brief

BILIYA SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LIMITED,MORBI, RAJKOT vs. ITO WARD 1, MORBI, MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 742/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Biliya Seva Sahkari Mandli Vs. Income Tax Office, Aayakar Limited Vibhag, J.K. Chamber, National At. Biliya, Tal. Morbi, Gujarat, Highway-8-A, At- Lalpar, Morvi 363641 (Gujarat) Morbi 363642 (Gujarat) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabab3498H (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of Rs. 737219. 2. The Ld. AO has erred on facts & in law in levying the penalty u/s 270A of the 1.T. Act. 3. The Ld. AO has erred on facts & in law in levying the penalty u/s 234F of the I.T. Act. Biliya Seva Sahkari Mandali

KUMAR RAMESH SAHU,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.336/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Kumar Ramesh Sahu बनाम/ The Acit, Sundaram, 72/3, New Cirtcle-2(3) Vs. College Wadi Rajkot – 60 001 150Ft5. Ring Road Opp. Meera Apartment Rajkot – 360 005 (Gujarat) "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aesps 5531 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha:

disallowed u/s 68 by Ld. AO in the assessment order.” 4.1. Ld. CIT (A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee order dated 30.08.2023, according to Ld. CIT (A), the appellant failed to explain the discrepancies pointed out by the Assessing Officer during the course of remand proceedings. Hence, the additions made in respect of unsecured loan/gifts