SHRI SHITALBHAI RASIKLAL RAVANI & SMT. BHAVNABEN SHITALBHAI RAVANI ,RAJKOT vs. THE CHIEF CIT, TDS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the applicants are dismissed

Bench: Us, The Same Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of A Common Order.

section 119(2)(a) r.w.s. 201(1A) and 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. These are appeals filed by Ms Bhavna Shital Ravani and Shri Shitalbhai Rasiklal Ravani, who are joint holders in property against the order passed by Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS

SHRI SHITALBHAI RASIKLAL RAVANI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO(TDS)-2, RAJKOT

Accordingly, in our considered view, the present appeal is not maintainable and hence the present appeal is being dismissed as non- maintainable

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

119(2)(a) read with Section 201(1) (IA) and Section 220(2A) by the Chief C.I.T. (TDS), Ahmedabad for waiver

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. SENOR METALS PVT. LTD., JAMNAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 260/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-12

119 A.Y. 2011-12 19 Manufacturing Expenses Payment to employee & labour cost 3 25 55 091 2 39 18 268 Contribution to pf and other fund 9 56 851 4 42 515 Stores consumed 1 50 89 056 84 78 312 Fuel consumed 45 27 354 37 81 664 Motive power( net generation income

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)

119; or (d) rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. The order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, 14. Once in the opinion of Ld. PCIT, the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been

BAN LABS PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.202/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ban Labs Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Ban House, Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Income Tax-1, Nagar, Gondal Road (South), Rajkot Rajkot-360004 (Gujarat) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacb8999C (Appellant) (Respondent)

119 of the Act hereby clarifies that Rule 8D read with section 14A of the Act provides for disallowance of the expenditure even where taxpayer in a particular year has not earned any exempt income.” 13. In response to the show-cause notice of the Assessing Officer, the assessee submitted detailed reply before the Assessing Officer, which is placed

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

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

2. Through these appeals, assessee assails the correctness of separate orders passed by the Learned Principal Commissioners of Income-tax (Ld.PCIT), in relation to the captioned assessment year 2018-19. Since these appeals are based on similar facts and common grounds of appeal, therefore, we are proceeding to dispose of them by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience

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

2. Through these appeals, assessee assails the correctness of separate orders passed by the Learned Principal Commissioners of Income-tax (Ld.PCIT), in relation to the captioned assessment year 2018-19. Since these appeals are based on similar facts and common grounds of appeal, therefore, we are proceeding to dispose of them by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience

GOJIYA BHIKHUBHAI,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

119 days and\n120 days, respectively, before this Tribunal. The assessees have moved petition\nfor condonation of delay in each appeal, separately on separate affidavit,\nrequesting the Bench to condone the respective delays, noted above. Since\nthese appeals are related to the same group, therefore, the assessee submitted the\nidentical and similar petitions for condonation of delay, that is, contents

SHRI CHINTAN KANJIBHAI KATARIYA,ANJAR-KUTCH vs. THE ITO WARD-1, , GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS was deducted. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs. 5,87,178/- as per provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer also observed that the assessee had made substantial cash payments to labourers towards site expenses. However, on verification of bills, vouchers etc. the Assessing Officer observed that certain payments were made