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

4. That, Learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance amounting to Rs.40,000/- u/s.40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for non-deduction of 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 and also not allowed

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

120 or any other provision of this Act, and the Additional Commissioner or Additional Director or Joint Commissioner or Joint Director who is directed under clause (b) of sub-section (4) of that section to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred on, or assigned to, an Assessing Officer under this Act; 5. On perusal

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

120 or any other provision of this Act, and the Additional Commissioner or Additional Director or Joint Commissioner or Joint Director who is directed under clause (b) of sub-section (4) of that section to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred on, or assigned to, an Assessing Officer under this Act; 5. On perusal

SHIV EXTRUSION,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 646/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Extrusion Vs. Income Tax Officer Plot No.3978 Phase Iiiroad Income Tax Office, Ito Ward No.-R Dared, Jamnagar 2(10), Jamnagar, Income 361004, Gujarat, India, Jamnagar Tax Office, Shiv Smruti, Jamnagar, Jamnagar, Gujarat, 361008, Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abkfs7199F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ramesh M. Patel, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2026

4. Invalidity due to Improper Sanction for Subsequent Notice (Section 151 New Regime): The subsequent notice u/s 148 dated 29.07.2022, issued on the explicit premise that the case fell under Section 149(1)(b) (more than three years elapsed), relied on the approval of the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT), Jamnagar. Section 151(ii) mandates that when more than

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

4,20,815 General invoice Trading value Total 2.21.28.335 128- ITA Nos. 284, 353, 225 & 226/RJT/2024 Aditya Birla Global Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. It was noticed by the assessing officer that assessee has not deducted TDS on this commission payment as per the provision of section 195 of the Act. As, TDS was not deducted from the above payment

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

4,20,815 General invoice Trading value Total 2.21.28.335 128- ITA Nos. 284, 353, 225 & 226/RJT/2024 Aditya Birla Global Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. It was noticed by the assessing officer that assessee has not deducted TDS on this commission payment as per the provision of section 195 of the Act. As, TDS was not deducted from the above payment

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

4,20,815 General invoice Trading value Total 2.21.28.335 128- ITA Nos. 284, 353, 225 & 226/RJT/2024 Aditya Birla Global Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. It was noticed by the assessing officer that assessee has not deducted TDS on this commission payment as per the provision of section 195 of the Act. As, TDS was not deducted from the above payment

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

4,20,815 General invoice Trading value Total 2.21.28.335 128- ITA Nos. 284, 353, 225 & 226/RJT/2024 Aditya Birla Global Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. It was noticed by the assessing officer that assessee has not deducted TDS on this commission payment as per the provision of section 195 of the Act. As, TDS was not deducted from the above payment

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

ADHYAKSHYA LOK MELA AMLIKARAN SAMMITTEE,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 283 & 284/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Adhyakshya Lok Mela Amlikaran Ito (Exemption) Sammittee Vs Ward-1, Rajkot. C/O. A.D.Vyas & Co. Kotecha Nagar Main Road Opp: Kotechha Girls High School Rajkot 360 001. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt.Ashaben Vyas, Ad Revenue By : Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.Dr

4. On perusal of the record, the ld.Commissioner formed an opinion that the assessment orders passed by the AO in both the years are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, he took cognizance under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Issued notice to the assessee inviting its explanation as to why assessment orders

ADHYAKSHYA LOK MELA AMLIKARAN SAMMITTEE,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 283 & 284/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Adhyakshya Lok Mela Amlikaran Ito (Exemption) Sammittee Vs Ward-1, Rajkot. C/O. A.D.Vyas & Co. Kotecha Nagar Main Road Opp: Kotechha Girls High School Rajkot 360 001. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt.Ashaben Vyas, Ad Revenue By : Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.Dr

4. On perusal of the record, the ld.Commissioner formed an opinion that the assessment orders passed by the AO in both the years are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, he took cognizance under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Issued notice to the assessee inviting its explanation as to why assessment orders

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

120 Nickel 5,78,047 377.00 3,43,070 486.10 Cadmium 12,981 70.00 15,960 61.00 Silicon 89,566 807.65 75,111 690.30 Magnesium - 16.00 2,688 - Generated Scrap 15,534.73 42,51,233 13,428.00 28,04,169 sub-total 144,31,712 1,55,403.70 308,93,305 56,426.29 (E) Less: Raw Material Sold Zinc 4

SHRI JAYANTILAL PAGHADAL,AT CHARAN SAMDHIYALA, NEW AREA PLOT, TALUKA JETPUR, DISTRICT RAJKOT-365480 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2) (3), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member)

b) and 57(iv) as held by the Department. The assessee in this case has mainly relied on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai Vs ITO, TDS-1, Surat 388 ITR 343 which, relying upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of CIT Vs Ghanshyam

PRAMUKH ARANYA DEVELOPERS,JUNAGADH vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee (in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.372 /Rjt/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2018-19) M/S. Pramukh Aranya Developers Office No. 5, First Floor, Cit Centre, Opp. New Collector Officer, B/H. Sardar Baug, Junagadh - 362001 The Pr. Cit-1, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaofp3393F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Appellant By राजस्व की प्रत्यर्थी ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: : 04/02/2025 : 28/04/2025 आदेश / Order By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Dated 30.03.2024, Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax (In Short “Ld Pcit"), Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'), For The Assessment Year2018-19.Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: M/S. Pramukh Aranya Developers V. Pcit

120/-, as on 31.03.2018. Out of the total Closing Stock, thestock of Rs. 17,31,88,000/- pertained to Financial year (FY) 2016-17. However, the assessee has not offered notional rent as per section u/s 22 r.w.s. 23 of Act, for those unsold units which have been completed in previous year, that is, 2016-17. The BUC(Completion certificate

JITENDRASINH ZALA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

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

4. Later on, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (in short “Ld PCIT”), exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.On perusal of the case records, the ld.PCIT noticed the following discrepancies: (i)Fin Tech Corporation Pvt. Ltd has booked expense of Rs. 22,88,000/-, on provision basis and the assessee has claimed that

VINAY INFRATECH PVT LTD,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 101/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 M/S Vinay Infratech Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of 110-112, Silver Chamber, Vs. Income Tax, Tagore Road, Rajkot-1, Rajkot. Rajkot.

B C D E F A.Y. 2017-18 12 1 Oriental Bank of 03.12.2016 25,00,000/- As per Bank - commerce A/c Certificate 09231100002149 2 HDFC A/c 03.12.2016 25,00,000/- As per Bank - No.03798710000056 Certificate 3 HDFC A/c 03.12.2016 25,00,000/- As per Bank - No.03798470000046 Certificate 4. Oriental Bank of 05.12.2016 25,00,000/- As per bank - Commerce

SHRI GAJRAJ NATUBHA JETHVA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-3 (2), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 426/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Gajraj Natubha Jethva Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ito Ward – Sikka Patiya, Moti Khavadi, 3(2), Taranjali Building, Nr. Amber Jamnagar-361140 Cinema, Pt. Nehru Marg, Hospital Road Jamnagar - 361140 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akypj9388E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt. Astha Maniyar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 20.10.2023, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act, on 29.12.2018. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows