THE ITO, WARD-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. DHOLU KCL JPF JV COMPANY,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: C .M. Garg & O. P. Meena

TDS in Government account if payment is made before due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. 9

HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

9. The case of CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. [1962] 46 ITR 649 (SC) related to claim of bad debts under the Act of 1922. In that case also, the case of the assessee-company was changed from one section (section 10(2)(xi) corresponding to section 36(l)(vii) and section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,, PORBANDAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

9. The case of CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. [1962] 46 ITR 649 (SC) related to claim of bad debts under the Act of 1922. In that case also, the case of the assessee-company was changed from one section (section 10(2)(xi) corresponding to section 36(l)(vii) and section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

9) DABRA Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS (ITAT AMRITSAR) (10) GITA STAR HOTELS and RESORTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS (ITAT JAIPUR) (11) M/s. AJMER THERMOTECH PVT. LTD. Vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS (ITAT JAIPUR) (12) SMT G INDHIRANI VS DCIT, CPC-TDS (ITAT CHENNAI) 8.2.1 The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, while deciding on the exact same

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

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 provisions, the assessee can be declared to be an assessee

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

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 provisions, the assessee can be declared to be an assessee

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

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 provisions, the assessee can be declared to be an assessee

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

139(1) of the Act, on 30.09.2008, declaring total income of\n2\nH\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\nRs.2,66,40,980/-. In this case, search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act, was\ncarried out at the residential, as well as business premises of the assessee, on\n20.05.2013

M/S. EPP COMPOSITES PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, , RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Epp Composites Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Plot No.2646, Gidc Metoda, Of Income Tax, Rajkot – 1. Rajkot. [Pan – Aabce 2957 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Respondent By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R Per Suchitra Kamble: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.03.2018 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Rajkot For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

139(1) of the Act. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The PCIT vide order dated 26.03.2018 passed under Section 263 of the Act directed the Assessing Officer to make afresh assessment denovo after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and cancelled the order of assessment

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 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

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

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

M/S. MAGNUM CERAMICS PVT. LTD. ,MORBI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MORBI CIRCLE, MORBI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2012-13 M/S.Magnum Ceramic P.Ltd. The Acit, Morbi Circle Plot No.207/24, Gidc Estate Vs Morbi. 8-A, National Highway At. Refaleshwar Morbi 362 268 Pan : Aafcm 2216 G

139(1) of the Act declaring total income at Rs.40,47,780/- and returned book profits for tax under section 115JB of the Act at Rs.39,23,2003/-. Due taxes werepaid on the returned income computed as per the normal provisions after claiming set off of credit of taxes paid under MAT brought forward from Asst.Year 2010-11of Rs.5

M/S. HINDUSTAN MINMENT INC.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) [Through Virtual Court]

139(1) of the Act on 24/09/2012 declaring total income at Rs, 1,82,186/-. 3. At the time of filing original return of income appellant had not claimed credit of TDS of Rs. 12,40,870/- deducted by the M/s. Aditya Coke Pvt. Ltd. as the same was not reflected in the statement of tax paid/deducted in the form

GLOBAL EXTRUSIONS PVT. LTD. ,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.203/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Global Extrusions Private Limited. Vs. Pcit Jamnagar, Ca Govind Sonecha Taranjali Building, “S&A House”, Near Golden City, Jamnagar 361008 80Ft Road, Khodiyar Colony, B/H Saru Section Police Headquarters, Jamnagar 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm4319E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Amoli Gusani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. (Cit)Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/03 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2025

9 and 10 of his Order by invoking Section 263 of the Act rendering the Assessment Order passed by the Ld. AO to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. Brief facts of the Case that the appellant is a Private Company and had filed Income Tax Return for the AY 2013-14 declaring total income

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.

TDS. The penalty confirmed is totally unjustified on facts was also in law and may kindly be deleted. 5. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. The assessee, before us, is an in individual and has originally filed return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, on 30.09.2008, declaring total income