THE ITO, WARD-2(2),, JAMNAGAR vs. SMT. SHITALBEN SAURABH VORA,, JAMNAGAR

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

13,744/- u/s. 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 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

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

C. Therefore, your authority is requested to kindly consider the submission as above and drop the present proceedings, as the once entire amount has been taxed in the case of one of the co-owners case, then if considered then it will be double taxation. Further, without prejudice to the above, I have to submit the following for no taxability

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)

TDS amounting to Rs. 18,96,225/-, which substantiates that the corresponding income is solely attributable to him. Furthermore, as observed from the AO's order, the assessee had initially distributed the interest income on compensation among other individuals and subsequently received the same back as a gift. In view of these facts, the AO has rightly added the entire

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)

c) because the right to receive payment under the 1894 Act is not in doubt. 55. It is important to note that compensation, including enhanced compensation/consideration under the 1894 Act, is based on the full value of property as on the date of notification under Section 4 of that Act. When the court/tribunal directs payment of enhanced compensation under Section

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

c) Explanation 2 has been inserted in section 195(1), w.e.f A.Y. 1962-63 to clarify that obligation to comply with section 195(1) and to make deduction there under applies and shall be deemed to have always applied and extends and shall be deemed to have always extended to all persons, resident or non-resident, whether

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.

section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the returned income of Rs. 1,64,75,250/- without any modifications. Later on, the assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, was issued to the assessee, on 07-08- 2013, which was duly served upon

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

2) Deemed rent of more than one properties, reflected in the Balance\nSheet Rs.1,80,000/-\n(3) Disallowance of payment of commission to Shri Rajesh Bhatt :\nRs.3,00,000/-\n9.\nIn order to levy penalty, u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act, on the above three\nitems, the assessing officer issued, show cause notice dated 05.07.2019 to the\nassessee

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

TDS statement under Section 200A of the Act. Thus, according to the petitioner, no fine could be levied under Section 234E of the Act. This contention of the assessee was rejected by the Hon’ble High Court and it was held that fine can be levied independently under Section 234E of the Act, because Hon’ble Court

JAYESHBHAI KANJIBHAI DANGARIYA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

TDS statement under Section 200A of the Act. Thus, according to the petitioner, no fine could be levied under Section 234E of the Act. This contention of the assessee was rejected by the Hon’ble High Court and it was held that fine can be levied independently under Section 234E of the Act, because Hon’ble Court

PARAG MAKANBHAI PARSANA,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

TDS statement under Section 200A of the Act. Thus, according to the petitioner, no fine could be levied under Section 234E of the Act. This contention of the assessee was rejected by the Hon’ble High Court and it was held that fine can be levied independently under Section 234E of the Act, because Hon’ble Court

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

TDS statement under Section 200A of the Act. Thus, according to the petitioner, no fine could be levied under Section 234E of the Act. This contention of the assessee was rejected by the Hon’ble High Court and it was held that fine can be levied independently under Section 234E of the Act, because Hon’ble Court

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

13 42 084 94 650 Less: Purchase rate difference 5 88 906 0 Closing stock 1 44 31 712 3 08 93 305 Total 96 11 59 274 65 97 68 119 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

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.

13 amount before the DDIT(Investigation). A perusal of computation of income for Asstt.Year 2003-04 would indicate that at serial no.5, the ld.AO has made an addition of Rs.36,50,978/- under the heading “Disclosure made before the DDIT(Investigation)-2, Rajkot.”. The assessee pleaded that she has worked out peak balance of Rs.32,20,478/- on the basis

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/03/2025 : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

2. 134496/Pankj(Precious LON) Standard Bank UK 3. Pankaj C Lodhiya A/c. No. 025332626002 RAK Bank UAE 4. 'Vin Gold LLC' Standard Chartered Bank UAE The assessing officer noticed that the assessee failed to explain the transactions made in the said account and also failed to reconcile the entries of the said accounts. The said account was not reflected anywhere

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACTIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

2. 134496/Pankj(Precious LON) Standard Bank UK 3. Pankaj C Lodhiya A/c. No. 025332626002 RAK Bank UAE 4. 'Vin Gold LLC' Standard Chartered Bank UAE The assessing officer noticed that the assessee failed to explain the transactions made in the said account and also failed to reconcile the entries of the said accounts. The said account was not reflected anywhere

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

C. Thacker, vehemently argued that assessee, has huge funds of Rs.28,34,76,940/-, available, as on 31-03-2011, on which no interest is payable, as against interest-free advances given to parties of Rs.4,35,00,000/-. This included Rs.2,15,00,000/- given to Maharaja Salt Works, as advance for purchase of salt. The said party failed

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

C. Thacker, vehemently argued that assessee, has huge funds of Rs.28,34,76,940/-, available, as on 31-03-2011, on which no interest is payable, as against interest-free advances given to parties of Rs.4,35,00,000/-. This included Rs.2,15,00,000/- given to Maharaja Salt Works, as advance for purchase of salt. The said party failed

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

C. Thacker, vehemently argued that assessee, has huge funds of Rs.28,34,76,940/-, available, as on 31-03-2011, on which no interest is payable, as against interest-free advances given to parties of Rs.4,35,00,000/-. This included Rs.2,15,00,000/- given to Maharaja Salt Works, as advance for purchase of salt. The said party failed

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

C. Thacker, vehemently argued that assessee, has huge funds of Rs.28,34,76,940/-, available, as on 31-03-2011, on which no interest is payable, as against interest-free advances given to parties of Rs.4,35,00,000/-. This included Rs.2,15,00,000/- given to Maharaja Salt Works, as advance for purchase of salt. The said party failed