ITO WARD 3(1)(4), RAJKOT-STATION- AMRELI, AMRELI, GUJARAT vs. AVADH AGRI EXPORTS, AMRELI, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

business connection in India, as, the question of taxability of such commission to income-tax has to be decided as per the provisions of section 9(1) of the Act". 5. Further, the assessee in its written submission dated 23.03.2015, relied on various decisions of Hon'ble I.T.A.T. and High Courts for no TDS

M/S. SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT CO-OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. ,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE DCIT, SURENDRANAGR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.262-263/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S.Surendranagar District D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Milk Producers Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Union Ltd. Surendranagar. Wadhwan City, Surendranagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 17/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 12/01/2018, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 26/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 20012-13 & 2013-14. Ita Nos.262-263/Rjt/2018 A.Y.S 2012-13 To 2013-14 First, We Take Up Ita No. 262/Rjt/2018 For A.Y. 2013-14

TDS u/s.194J for payment made for laboratory testing charges. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the profit on sale of Rs.5,52,499/- as business income

THE ITO, WARD-2(2),, JAMNAGAR vs. SMT. SHITALBEN SAURABH VORA,, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.262-263/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S.Surendranagar District D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Milk Producers Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Union Ltd. Surendranagar. Wadhwan City, Surendranagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 17/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 12/01/2018, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 26/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 20012-13 & 2013-14. Ita Nos.262-263/Rjt/2018 A.Y.S 2012-13 To 2013-14 First, We Take Up Ita No. 262/Rjt/2018 For A.Y. 2013-14

TDS u/s.194J for payment made for laboratory testing charges. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the profit on sale of Rs.5,52,499/- as business income

SHREE SAMARTH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

income, or loss of revenue, as the assessee paid the taxes on the difference in valuation of business stock. Since the stock pertains to the business, hence no any tax liability may be imposed on the assessee under section 115BBE of the Act. 16.About TDS

SHREE SAMARTH SWITCHGEAR AND TRANSMISSION PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

income, or loss of revenue, as the assessee paid the taxes on the difference in valuation of business stock. Since the stock pertains to the business, hence no any tax liability may be imposed on the assessee under section 115BBE of the Act. 16.About TDS

M/S. HINDUSTAN MINMENT INC.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) [Through Virtual Court]

business of trading of Cement, Coal, Sand and other allied items. Originally return of income was filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act on 24/09/2012 declaring total income at Rs, 1,82,186/-. 3. At the time of filing original return of income appellant had not claimed credit of TDS

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. RAJKOT PEOPLES CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed except CO of the assessee in the Asstt

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsr.

business. The ld/AO found discrepancy in the details submitted in form no.26AS. The ld.AO has worked out all these discrepancy and held that a sum of Rs.3,93,541/- was not recognised by the assessee as commission income. He was of the opinion that the assessee has claimed TDS

ASHOK GOPALDAS VITHLANI,JAMKHAMBHALIYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees(ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 595/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 107, Divyam Park, Jamnagar 361001 Opp. H.O. Bhatt Bunglow, Nr. Sanjeevani Medical Store, Jamnagar - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aascs8645J (Appellant) (Respondent)

income declared during the course of survey is from assessee`s business, which is evident from the statement given during the course of survey by the assessee. The stock was from the current business of the assessee, and the excess stock found by the survey team was because of different valuation technique adopted by the survey team. Therefore, we find

SHIV GREEN ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees(ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 595/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 107, Divyam Park, Jamnagar 361001 Opp. H.O. Bhatt Bunglow, Nr. Sanjeevani Medical Store, Jamnagar - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aascs8645J (Appellant) (Respondent)

income declared during the course of survey is from assessee`s business, which is evident from the statement given during the course of survey by the assessee. The stock was from the current business of the assessee, and the excess stock found by the survey team was because of different valuation technique adopted by the survey team. Therefore, we find

MANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA,RAJKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.318/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Sakariya The Pr.Commissioner Of बनाम At Khajuri Gundala Income Tax-1, Rajkot. Post Station: Vavdi Vs. Amarnagar, Khajuri Gundala. Pan : Aslps 7027 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ld.Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

business and profession. Detailed computation income. I am enclosing herewith the detailed computation of income at Annexure-B. You are requested to explain if the interest received on enhanced compensation has been offered to tax under the head 'income from other sources' as per the section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 145B(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this regard

FRIENDS SALT WORKS & ALLIED INDS.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE GANDHIDHAM,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

business receipt, *Why the excessive losses shown in washing of salt should not be added back to the Income and why interest paid on late deposit of TDS

FRIENDS SALT WORKS AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES,GANDHIDHAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

business receipt, *Why the excessive losses shown in washing of salt should not be added back to the Income and why interest paid on late deposit of TDS

THE ITO, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM vs. SHRI JUNEJA CHANDRAKALA MOHINDER,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.995/Rjt/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Ito, Smt Juneja Chandrakala Ward-1, Mohinder, Vs. Gandhidham, 31, Tanker Owner Association Building, N.H. Way, Gandhidham-Kutch. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.930/Rjt/2010 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.453/Rjt/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Smt. Chandrakala M. Juneja, Ito, 31, Taker, Owners Asso. Ward-1, Vs. Bldg. Gandhidham. Gandhidham. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

business of transportation. The assessee in the year under consideration claimed to have owned two trucks and has declared an income of Rs. 1,25,000/- under section 44AE of the Act. The assessee during the year has deposited certain sum of money in her bank account. The details of the same stand as under: Sr.No. Name of the Bank

SMT. JUNEJA CHANDRAKALA MOHINDERKUMAR,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.995/Rjt/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Ito, Smt Juneja Chandrakala Ward-1, Mohinder, Vs. Gandhidham, 31, Tanker Owner Association Building, N.H. Way, Gandhidham-Kutch. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.930/Rjt/2010 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.453/Rjt/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Smt. Chandrakala M. Juneja, Ito, 31, Taker, Owners Asso. Ward-1, Vs. Bldg. Gandhidham. Gandhidham. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

business of transportation. The assessee in the year under consideration claimed to have owned two trucks and has declared an income of Rs. 1,25,000/- under section 44AE of the Act. The assessee during the year has deposited certain sum of money in her bank account. The details of the same stand as under: Sr.No. Name of the Bank

SMT. CHANDRAKALA M. JUNEJA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.995/Rjt/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Ito, Smt Juneja Chandrakala Ward-1, Mohinder, Vs. Gandhidham, 31, Tanker Owner Association Building, N.H. Way, Gandhidham-Kutch. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.930/Rjt/2010 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.453/Rjt/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Smt. Chandrakala M. Juneja, Ito, 31, Taker, Owners Asso. Ward-1, Vs. Bldg. Gandhidham. Gandhidham. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

business of transportation. The assessee in the year under consideration claimed to have owned two trucks and has declared an income of Rs. 1,25,000/- under section 44AE of the Act. The assessee during the year has deposited certain sum of money in her bank account. The details of the same stand as under: Sr.No. Name of the Bank

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 , RAJKOT vs. ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING(INDIA) PVT.LTD. (SWISS SINGAPORE INDIA PVT. LTD.), GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

income and thus, requirement of TDS therefore would not arise. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 20. Learned DR for the Revenue argued that since the assessee-company, has not deducted TDS on this commission payment, as per the provision of section 195 of the Act. As, TDS

ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, GANDHIHDAM, GANDHIDHAM, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

income and thus, requirement of TDS therefore would not arise. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 20. Learned DR for the Revenue argued that since the assessee-company, has not deducted TDS on this commission payment, as per the provision of section 195 of the Act. As, TDS

ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GUJARAT vs. DCIT-ACIT CENT-2 RKT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

income and thus, requirement of TDS therefore would not arise. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 20. Learned DR for the Revenue argued that since the assessee-company, has not deducted TDS on this commission payment, as per the provision of section 195 of the Act. As, TDS

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, RAJKOT vs. ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SWISS SINGAPORE INDIA PVT. LTD., GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

income and thus, requirement of TDS therefore would not arise. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 20. Learned DR for the Revenue argued that since the assessee-company, has not deducted TDS on this commission payment, as per the provision of section 195 of the Act. As, TDS