ASHOKKUMAR PROJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,PORBANDAR vs. THE PR. CIT, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appear of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.83/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Ashokkumar Projects India P. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, 4Th Floor, Manek Centre, P.N. Cholera Arcade, M.G. Road Opposite, Bhaveshwar Mahadev Marg, Jamnagar - 361008 Temple, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamca5891Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

10. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has not enquired or the assessee has not provided any details / documentary evidences or explanation with respect to the issues in question. However, during the course of proceedings u/s 263 of the Act, the assessee has submitted copies of TDS ledger, copies of acknowledgement for TDS return and copies

KANTABEN VAJUBHAI PAGHADAL,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.552/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Kantaben Vajubhai Paghadal Vs. It-Office, New Aayakar At- Charan Samadhiyala, Bhawan, Jetpur – 360370(Gujarat) Rajkot - 360370 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxmpp2962D (Appellant) (Respondent)

14) of the Act. However, the interest awarded as per section 28 of the Act, has been considered as chargeable to tax u/s 56(2)(viii) of the Act. Substantial addition for 25% share in interest and protective addition for 75% share in interest has been made in hands of Babubhai. Accordingly, information was given to the assessing officer

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

14), w.r.e.f. A.Y. 1962-63 to clarify that 'property' includes and shall be deemed to have always included any rights in or in relation to an Indian company, including rights of management or control or any other rights whatsoever (b) Explanation 2 has been inserted in section 2(47), w.e.f. A.Y.1962-63 to clarify that 'transfer includes and shall be deemed

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

TDS provisions, the assessee can be declared to be an assessee in default u/s. 201 of the Act and no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance made by the assessing officer cannot be sustained. The addition made at Rs.67,84,807/- on account of disallowance of payments

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS provisions, the assessee can be declared to be an assessee in default u/s. 201 of the Act and no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance made by the assessing officer cannot be sustained. The addition made at Rs.67,84,807/- on account of disallowance of payments

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS provisions, the assessee can be declared to be an assessee in default u/s. 201 of the Act and no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance made by the assessing officer cannot be sustained. The addition made at Rs.67,84,807/- on account of disallowance of payments

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.111 To 113/Rjt/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Krupalu Metals Pvt. Ltd Income Tax Officer, बनाम / National Faceless Assessment Plot No..4345, Gidc, Phase- Vs. Centre, Delhi/Dcit, Circle-3, Iii, Udhyog Nagar, Jamnagar Jamnagar-361008 स्थायी लेखा सं/. जीआइआर सं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aadck6122 B (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sarvesh Gohil, Ld. Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 27/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order Captioned Three Appeals, Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To

TDS return etc. of the parties with whom alleged transactions made. (viii) On the basis of facts and circumstances, AO has correctly adopted the figures of G.P of Rs.2,40,30,182/- which is as per show cause notice. However, assessee was free to substantiate its claim with documentary evidences, which assessee failed even in response to draft assessment order

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.111 To 113/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16

10 Central Goods & Service Tax/Excise Department thereon. It is at the fagend, the assessee is trying to delay the time barring proceedings. (vi) The assessee's contention that profit margin should be added even ifit is assumed that same is undisclosed or suppressed sale. This theory of assessee is not acceptable and AO has correctly adopted the figures

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC CIT(A), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.111 To 113/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16

10 Central Goods & Service Tax/Excise Department thereon. It is at the fagend, the assessee is trying to delay the time barring proceedings. (vi) The assessee's contention that profit margin should be added even ifit is assumed that same is undisclosed or suppressed sale. This theory of assessee is not acceptable and AO has correctly adopted the figures

SHRI NIRMAL RAJENDRA JAGETIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO (TDS-3), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

10. In this case, for the AY 2013-14, the quarterly return filed by the assessee and order passed by the Assessing Officer are on or before 01.06.2015 and thus, there cannot be any late fees for filing return u/s.234E of the Act, and hence, addition made for the AY 2013-14 is deleted

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-3(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. SONPAL EXPORTS PVT. LTD., RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Dcit, Circle – 3(1), Vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd. Rajkot Aayakar Bhavan, Room Dhari Bagsara Road, Nr. Ice No. 114, 1St Floor, Race Course Factory, Amreli Ring Road, Rajkot Pan No.: Aajcs0177N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am; By Way Of This Appeal, The Revenue, Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 16.11.2017, Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Grievances Raised By The Revenue, Which Are Interconnected & Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 13,96,33,023/- Holding That Provision Of Section 195 Will Not Be Applicable. 2. On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred In Ignoring The Facts That The Assessee Has Failed To Prove The Genuineness Of Foreign Commission Expenses Before The A.O. 3. It Is, Therefore, Prayed That The Order Of The C.I.T. (A) May Be Set Aside & That Of The A.O. Be Restored To The Above Extent. Dcit Vs. M/S. Sonpal Export Pvt. Ltd.

10. Lacs Co Ltd China Commission Rs. 12,30,250 No Total Commission Rs. 13,96,33,023 No 5. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the copies of agreement with the foreign commission agents mentioning the commission percentage and the terms and conditions. In response to this, the assessee submitted copy of an agreement with

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, JUNAGADH vs. M/S KESHODWALA FOODS., VERAVAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1133/Rjt/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08) D.C.I.T, बनाम/ M/S Keshodwala Foods, Circle-1, 305-G.I.D.C. Industrial Vs. Junagadh. Estate, Somnath Road, Veraval. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfk6651Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ranjit Singh Cit. D.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D.M. Rindani, A.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 16/06/2010, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 08/12/2009 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2007- 08. A.Y. 2007-08 The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

TDS under the provisions of section 194C/195 of the Act. Hence the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. A.Y. 2007-08 14. The next issue raised by the revenue is that the learned CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs.26,69,502/- on account of unpaid liabilities under section

BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIA,JETPUR vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, 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. 156/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Babubhai Kanjibhai Sakariya Vs. Ito, Wd 1(2)(1), Rajkot Plot No. 82 Satyam Park, Amarnagar Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Jetpur,(Rajkot-Gujarat) -360370 Road, Rajkot 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agnps7407C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

10,846 + Rs.23,70,283). 6. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before ld.CIT(A), who has confirmed the additions made by the assessing officer. The ld. CIT(A) noticed that assessee has claimed credit for the entire TDS amounting to Rs. 18,96,225/-, which substantiates that the corresponding income

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

10,846/-, said to be pertaining to other co-owners on protective basis was made in the hands of Babubhai Sakaria. In view of the above facts, the assessing officer ought to have added the amount of Rs.23,70,282/- in the hands of the assessee on substantive basis. However, the assessing officer has not made MansukhbhaiKanjibhai Sakariya Vs. Pr.CIT

PRANAM ENTERPRISE,JUNAGADH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.391/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pranam Enterprise Vs. The Dcit Office No.3, City Centre, Opp. Circle-1(1), Rajkot New Collector Office, Junagadh – 362001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffp7926H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Respondent By Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am:

10. The issue for consideration before us is that whether penalty under Section 270A of the Act can be levied in the instant set of facts, when as per the assessee, she was under the genuine belief that since taxes has been deducted at source on such sale of property then there was no occasion to file return of income

SHREE SWAMINARAYAN MANDIR TRUST ,RAMPAR vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD - 1, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.340/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2020-21)

TDS on such expenses. The assessee even has failed to explain the nature and bifurcation of such religious expenses claimed. All the above facts prove that the expense claimed by the assessee are non-genuine and without any documentary evidence which point to the fact that all the transactions shown by the assessee in its ITR are manipulated to adjust

VISHAL ENTERPRISE, ,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

14. Section 200A(1) of the Act prior to 01.06.2015 provided as under: Section 200A(1) "Processing of statements of tax deducted at source. 200A. (1) Where a statement of tax deduction at source [or a correction statement] has been made by a person deducting any sum (hereafter referred to in this section as deductor) under section 200, such statement

RAKESH BASANTILAL LADDHA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

14. Section 200A(1) of the Act prior to 01.06.2015 provided as under: Section 200A(1) "Processing of statements of tax deducted at source. 200A. (1) Where a statement of tax deduction at source [or a correction statement] has been made by a person deducting any sum (hereafter referred to in this section as deductor) under section 200, such statement