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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\n\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76 to 80/RJT/2022, relates to penalty\nu/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and appeal

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\n2.\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\n2.\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\n2.\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

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

TDS. The penalty confirmed is totally\nunjustified on facts was also in law and may kindly be deleted.\n5.\nThe relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are\nas follows. The assessee, before us, is an in individual and has originally filed\nreturn of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, on 30.09.2008, declaring total income

M/S. D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

1) of section 139. This section 40(a)(ia) of the Act refers only to the duty to deduct tax and pay to government account. If there is any shortfall due to any difference of opinion as to the taxability of any item or the nature of payment falling under various TDS

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

1) of section 139. This section 40(a)(ia) of the Act refers only to the duty to deduct tax and pay to government account. If there is any shortfall due to any difference of opinion as to the taxability of any item or the nature of payment falling under various TDS

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

1) of section 139. This section 40(a)(ia) of the Act refers only to the duty to deduct tax and pay to government account. If there is any shortfall due to any difference of opinion as to the taxability of any item or the nature of payment falling under various TDS

SHRI NIRMAL RAJENDRA JAGETIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO (TDS-3), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1), for clauses (c)\nto (e), the following clauses shall be with effect from the 1st day of June,\n2015, namely:-\n(c) the fee, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of\nSection 234E;\n(d) the sum payable by, or the amount of refund due to the deductor shall\nbe determined after adjustment

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

139(1) or in the return filed in response to the notice u/s.148 of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer stated that the appellant initially did not claim exemption u/s.10(23C)(iiiab)(iiiad) of the Act in the ITR u/s.139(1) as well as return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Further, the appellant has claimed

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

139(1) or in the return filed in response to the notice u/s.148 of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer stated that the appellant initially did not claim exemption u/s.10(23C)(iiiab)(iiiad) of the Act in the ITR u/s.139(1) as well as return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Further, the appellant has claimed

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

TDS deducted etc. As far as the issue of retraction of statements by impugned parties and their subsequent filing of sworn affidavits alleging coercion and duress is concerned, i! is seen that the appellant has attempted to introduce the impugned sworn affidavits as additional evidences Apropos, to the discussions made m the preceding paras, it has been held'that

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

TDS deducted etc. As far as the issue of retraction of statements by impugned parties and their subsequent filing of sworn affidavits alleging coercion and duress is concerned, i! is seen that the appellant has attempted to introduce the impugned sworn affidavits as additional evidences Apropos, to the discussions made m the preceding paras, it has been held'that

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

TDS deducted etc. As far as the issue of retraction of statements by impugned parties and their subsequent filing of sworn affidavits alleging coercion and duress is concerned, i! is seen that the appellant has attempted to introduce the impugned sworn affidavits as additional evidences Apropos, to the discussions made m the preceding paras, it has been held'that

NEXION SURFACES PVT. LTD.,LALPAR, GUNGAN, RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT CIR-1(1), RAJKOT

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

sections": [ "143(1)", "154", "139(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the assessee is entitled to claim credit for TDS, TCS, and advance

ANKUL CONSTRUCTION CO.,RAJKOT vs. THE ASSIT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , CPC BENGLURU/ITO WD-1(2)(1), RAJKOT

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 484/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) Anukul Constriction Co. Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income 901, Aalap-B, Opp. Shastri Ground, Tax, Cpc Bangaluru / Ito Limda Chowk, Ward 1(2)(1), Rajkot – 360001 Aayakar Bhavan, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfa2385E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Jay Kathrani, Ld. A.R. Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/02/2025

139 declaring total income of Rs. 11,46,740/-. The Learned Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC Bangaluru has determined demand of Rs. 83,10,320/-. That the Ld. CPC rejecting the claim of the assessee without issued of notice u/s. 143(1) clause 1 of the Act, and an order u/s. 143(1) of the Act passed

M/S. L. L. ELECTRICALS,RAJKOT vs. THE NEAC, DELHI , DELHI

In the result, ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is being set aside to the file of Assessing Officer with the aforesaid directions

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS on interest paid to them. In view of the above detailed discussion, no Infirmity is found in the action of the AO of making addition of Rs.1,67,936/- Accordingly, the Ground of appeal No.1 raised by the appellant is dismissed.” L. L. Electricals vs. ITO Asst.Year –2018-19 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against

SHREE SWAMINARAYAN MANDIR TRUST ,RAMPAR vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD - 1, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.340/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2020-21)

TDS on such expenses. The assessee even has failed to explain the nature and bifurcation of such religious expenses claimed. All the above facts prove that the expense claimed by the assessee are non-genuine and without any documentary evidence which point to the fact that all the transactions shown by the assessee in its ITR are manipulated to adjust

SHRI JAYANTILAL P. SATIKUNVAR,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-2(3),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is being set aside to the file of assessing officer with the aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

TDS on payments made for security charges of the " 2,17,743/-. 6. Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had made aforesaid payment to M/s Jay Bhole Security Services and relied upon the legal proposition that once the payee/recipient had offered the aforesaid receipts in its hands as its taxable income, then the assessee cannot