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.

b. ....... ... 1,45,203/- c. ....... ... 1,45,203/- Total tax effect ( see note below ). . . 1,45,203/-” Shri Shital Rasiklal Ravani has taken the following grounds of appeal: “a. Original (joint names) order under section 119(2)(a) read with section 201 (IA) and 220(2A) by the learned Chief C.I.T. (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 is erroneous in law and in facts specially when there was no separate Individual name application for waiver of interest made by the assessee u/s. 220(2A) of the Act before him and also no separate Shri Shitalbhai Rasiklal

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

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

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

B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Mahesh Paun, ld.AR राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 06/03/2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 25/04/2025 ORDER PERDR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: By wayof these three appeals, different assessees have challenged the correctness of the separate orders

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

B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Mahesh Paun, ld.AR राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 06/03/2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 25/04/2025 ORDER PERDR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: By wayof these three appeals, different assessees have challenged the correctness of the separate orders

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