M/S SHYAM ENTERPRISE,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.324/Rjt/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Income Tax Officer, M/S Shyam Enterprise, Ward 1(3), Vs. Shop No.3, Prasang Complex, Rajkot. 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot.

TDS amount for the two reasons. Firstly, the party did not respond to the notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act. Secondly

PARSHWA PRINT PACK PVT. LTD.,,WADHWAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

133(6) of the Act to the above mentioned parties but no response was received. Thereafter, a summon under section 131(1) of the Act was issued to all the parties. In response to the summon, the parties mentioned at serial Nos. 1 to 5 in the above table came forward and their statements were recorded. The AO found

PARSHWA PRINTPACK PVT. LTD.,,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

133(6) of the Act to the above mentioned parties but no response was received. Thereafter, a summon under section 131(1) of the Act was issued to all the parties. In response to the summon, the parties mentioned at serial Nos. 1 to 5 in the above table came forward and their statements were recorded. The AO found

PARSHWA PRINT PACK PVT. LTD.,,WADHWAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

133(6) of the Act to the above mentioned parties but no response was received. Thereafter, a summon under section 131(1) of the Act was issued to all the parties. In response to the summon, the parties mentioned at serial Nos. 1 to 5 in the above table came forward and their statements were recorded. The AO found

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S RAMBOO PROLEN PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, ground number 8 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed

section 133(6) of the Act , the AO noted that the said transaction is not appearing on this account. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the job work of " 83,892/-. I.T.A No. 503/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2005-06 Page No 15 Dy. CIT vs. M/s. Ramboo Prolen (I) Pvt. Ltd. 24. In appeal, the assessee submitted that the job expenditure cannot be disallowed

P P CORPORATION,RAJKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 133(6) of the Act to the lenders calling for the return of income and other details, which were submitted before the assessing officer. Therefore, assessing officer, having examined, these details and documents, took the plausible view about the genuineness of the Landers, and therefore order passed by the assessing officer after making due application of mind cannot

HITESH SHAMJIBHAI KATARIA,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, JAMNAGAR.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.370/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Income Tax Officer, Shri Hitesh Shamjibhai Kataria, Ward 3(1), Vs. Pro. Of M/S Kaizen Metals India, Jamnagar. Plot No.375, Gidc, Shanker Tekri, Udhyog Nagar, Jamnagar-361004. Pan: Aqzpk9160E

TDS under section 194H of the Act. As such, the amount of commission income was declared in the income tax return of the respective employees. Asstt. Year 2014-15 4 3.2 The assessee also claimed that a similar amount of commission paid to the employees was allowed in the earlier years. As such, there was no disallowance made

ASHOK HIRPARA, DEPUTY COMMIOSSIONER OF INCOMETAX, JAMNAGAR vs. SANJAY GULABRAI KUNDALIA, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.66/Rjt/2025 & C.O. No. 10/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sanjay Gulabrai Kundalia बनाम Tax, Jamnagar Khambhaliya Circle-1, Vs. Highway, Sikkarpatiya, Jamnagar Sikka, Jamnagar Pan: Acypk3888Q Sanjay Gulabrai Kundalia Jamnagar Khambhaliya Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Highway, Sikkarpatiya, Circle-1, Jamnagar Sikka, Jamnagar Pan: Acypk3888Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant/Respondent) : (""यथ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri K.D. Sheth, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18/09/2025 Order Per: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17, Are Directed Against The Common Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 10.12.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Dcit Vs.Sanjay Gulabrai Kundalia

section 133(6) of the Act, the respective parties filed the confirmations before the assessing officer. The assessee also filed the bank statement before the assessing officer. The assessee also submitted before the assessing officer, that most of the transactions are through account payee cheques and also stated the in appropriate cases TDS

THE ITO, WARD-1(4),, DWARKA vs. SHRI JUVANSINH JORUBHA JADEJA,, DWARKA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

133(6) of the Act were issued on the addresses provided by the assessee. Notices were returned un-served by the Postal Authorities in respect of two of the Sundry Creditors. Till the finalisat6ion of the Assessment Order, the assessee did not file any details and, therefore, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs.2,64,54,340/- on account

DEPUTY COMMIOSSIONER OF INCOMETAX, JAMNAGAR vs. VASANTBHAI MULJIBHAI KANANI, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, whereas appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.124/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Dy. Cit, Cir-1 Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani बनाम Jamnagar. Plot No.7, Ambica Enterprise Vs. Sardar Patel Ind. Estte-4 Indira Road Opp: Jakat Naka, Jamnagar-361004 (Guj) Pan : Aitpk 8038 P आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.08/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani Dy. Cit, Cir-1 बनाम Plot No.7, Ambica Enterprise Jamnagar. Sardar Patel Ind. Estte-4 Vs. Indira Road Opp: Jakat Naka, Jamnagar- 361004 (Guj) Pan : Aitpk 8038 P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 142(1) of the Act, which is placed on Paper Book (PB) Page no.10. In response to this notice, the assessee submitted all the documents and evidences, vide assessee’s reply dated 31.8.2023 wherein the assessee submitted the bill of lading, bill of entry and invoices, Bank statement, before the assessing officer. Apart from this, the assessee has also

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

133(6) of the Act obtains the information about the payment made by M/s. Sutreja & Co. to the assessee as detailed under: Rs.38,71,651 Bank of Baroda, Rajkot dated 21/8/2004. Rs.39,107 TDS Rs.8,75,000 Bank of Baroda, Rajkot dated 4/11/2004 Rs.9,017 TDS Rs.40,00,000 Bank of Baroda, dated 12/12/2004 Rs.10,00,000 Bank of Baroda

M/S SAFARI FINE CLOTHING PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM. vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM., GANDHIDHAM

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedिनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Acit, Ltd., Vs. Gandhidham Circle Shed No.280/281, A Type, Gandhidham. Sector No.3, Ka Sez, Gandhinagar- Kutch वष" Ito, M/S. Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ward-2, Vs. Ltd., Gandhidham "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajcs 0565 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan L. Agarwal, Ar. Revenue By : S Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/08/2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03/10/2018

TDS u/s 194H of the Act and through banking channel. Therefore, the identity and genuineness of the commission expenses cannot be doubted. The non- response from the commission agent u/s 133(6) of the Act cannot be a ground for making the disallowance of the commission expenses. The assessee filed the income tax return, copies of the bills

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

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)

133(6), it is seen that huge unsecured loans were shown as the source for share investment and to provide unsecured loan to the assessee-company. From the Balance Sheets / Bank Statements, it appears that most of these loans have been taken for the purpose of Share Capital Investment and unsecured loans. Therefore as per the provision of section

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

section 43(5). It is immaterial whether transaction is carried out at the recognized stock exchange or not. Even the circular of CBDT cited in the assessment order states that once it is established that the assessee has entered in the transaction of the commodity that they deal the other technical details have no material impact. Hence, this reasoning

JABIR AYOOB VAHEVARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.26/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Jabir Ayoob Vahevaria Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Plot No.3452 Gidc 3, Dared Income-Tax, Jamnagar, Jamnagar-361 004 ( Gujarat) Vs. Room No.101, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.:Aeqpv3027C "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.27/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Altaf Ayoobbhai Vehvaria, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Prop. Of K A Enterprise, Ground Income-Tax, Floor, Near Alamin Park, Vs. Jamnagar, Room No.101, 1St Vehwaria Madresa, Jamnagar- 361 004 Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.: Aempv7317M "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit- Dr

133(6) of the Act, wherein the detail of these 11 parties have been asked by the Assessing Officer and in response to ITA No.26-27/Rjt/2025 A.Y.21-22 Jabir A Vahevaria& Altaf A Vehvaria 6 notices, the respective party submitted its reply before the assessing officer. The Assessing Officer also issued notices u/s 142(1) dated 26.10.2022 asking the assessee to file

ALTAF AYOOBBHAI VEHVARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.26/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Jabir Ayoob Vahevaria Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Plot No.3452 Gidc 3, Dared Income-Tax, Jamnagar, Jamnagar-361 004 ( Gujarat) Vs. Room No.101, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.:Aeqpv3027C "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.27/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Altaf Ayoobbhai Vehvaria, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Prop. Of K A Enterprise, Ground Income-Tax, Floor, Near Alamin Park, Vs. Jamnagar, Room No.101, 1St Vehwaria Madresa, Jamnagar- 361 004 Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.: Aempv7317M "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit- Dr

133(6) of the Act, wherein the detail of these 11 parties have been asked by the Assessing Officer and in response to ITA No.26-27/Rjt/2025 A.Y.21-22 Jabir A Vahevaria& Altaf A Vehvaria 6 notices, the respective party submitted its reply before the assessing officer. The Assessing Officer also issued notices u/s 142(1) dated 26.10.2022 asking the assessee to file

SHILPA ROHIT THAKKAR,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.403/Rjt/2013 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 009-10) Smt.Shilpa Rohit Thakkar The Income Tax बनाम/ 702, Guruprasad Appt. Officer Vs. B/H. Shiv Ice Cream Ward-3(4) Race Course Ring Road Rajkot Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpt 2819 H .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.Dr

133(6) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added the sum of Rs.1,40,000/- after allowing the statutory deduction of Rs.60,000/- (30% of Rs.2,00,000/-) to the total income of the assessee. 5. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that she sold the property

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE PROJECTS LIMITED.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 I.T.A No. 404/Rjt/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 2 DCIT vs. M/s. Backbone Projects Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2013-14. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Company engaged in the business of Civil