SUNDERLAL CHOTMAL JAIN,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, TDS WARD-3, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jamnagar. However The Assessing Officer Issued A Show Cause Notice Dated 18-08-2015, 01-06-2016 That The Assessee Has Not Collected Tcs To The Tune Of Rs. 4,28,432/- Sale Of Scraps For The For The Relevant Assessment Year 2012-13 & Assesse Has Not Filed Statement In Form 27Eq.

section 206C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2012-13. I.T.A No. 02/Rjt/203 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Shri Sundarlal Chotmal Jain Vs. ITO (TDS) 2.1. The brief fact of the case is that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of trading

THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. MANISHABEN N. MASHRU,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsr.No.

115 38,77,759 2.16% 2005-06 90,84,157 27,91,555 61 ,469 0.68% Total 23,93,86,067 10,99,87,129 40,98,852 1.05% 13. At this stage, we would like to make a reference to section 68 of the Income Tax Act, which contemplates that where any sum is found credited in the books

THE ITO, WARD 1(3), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S PAVAN CONSTRUCTION CO, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS was deducted by M/s. Sutreja & Co. which was duly claimed by the assessee in its income tax return. The assessee has also filed a statement showing the details of the bills raised to M/s. Sutreja & Co. during the year which were offered to tax. The same has been reproduced somewhere in the preceding year

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

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

TDS-2 v. Tata Steel Ltd. [2024] 163 taxmann.com 345 (Mumbai - Trib.)  Abdul Azeez Haroon v. DCIT (International Taxation) [2020] (115 taxmann.com 289) (Madras)  Smt. Smriti Kedia v. UOI [2012] (20 taxmann.com 426) (Calcutta) 6. Therefore, the impugned assessment order passed without fulfilling the jurisdictional compliances is vague and bad-in-law. e) The approval accorded by the designated authority

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

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

TDS-2 v. Tata Steel Ltd. [2024] 163 taxmann.com 345 (Mumbai - Trib.)  Abdul Azeez Haroon v. DCIT (International Taxation) [2020] (115 taxmann.com 289) (Madras)  Smt. Smriti Kedia v. UOI [2012] (20 taxmann.com 426) (Calcutta) 6. Therefore, the impugned assessment order passed without fulfilling the jurisdictional compliances is vague and bad-in-law. e) The approval accorded by the designated authority

HOLLIS VITRIFIED PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI, GUJARAT, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT, INDIA

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

115 (SC) has held as under: "7.2 Thus, even as observed in paragraph 9 by this Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) that the scheme of the Act is to levy and collect tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act and this task is entrusted to the Revenue. It is further observed that