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

section 195(1) of the Act, the AO noted that the assessee has made foreign commission payment to non-resident agent Page 2 of 20 ITA No.816/Rjt/2025 -AY 2012-13 ITO vs. Avadh Agri Exports and ocean freight, however, the TDS was not made deducted while making the payment/crediting in its accounts which is required to be disallowed. The assessing

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

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

TDS and in GojijyaBhikhubhai and Others ITA No.609, 610 and 612/RJT/2024 (AY :2018-19) 20 fact, the assessing officer issued the notice under section 142

SHREE SAMARTH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

TDS and in GojijyaBhikhubhai and Others ITA No.609, 610 and 612/RJT/2024 (AY :2018-19) 20 fact, the assessing officer issued the notice under section 142

GOJIYA BHIKHUBHAI,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

TDS and in\nfact, the assessing officer issued the notice under section 142(1) of the Act,\nasking the assessee

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

TDS made on said interest by Land Acquisition Officer reflected in 26AS of Shri Babubhai Kanjibhai Sakariya, one of the co-owners of the ancestral property acquired by Land Acquisition Officer. On verification, it was also seen that the share of the assessee in said ancestral property was 25% and accordingly, share of the assessee in interest received on enhanced

SHIV GREEN ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees(ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 595/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 107, Divyam Park, Jamnagar 361001 Opp. H.O. Bhatt Bunglow, Nr. Sanjeevani Medical Store, Jamnagar - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aascs8645J (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS and in fact, the assessing officer issued the notice under section 142(1) of the Act, asking the assessee

ASHOK GOPALDAS VITHLANI,JAMKHAMBHALIYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees(ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 595/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 107, Divyam Park, Jamnagar 361001 Opp. H.O. Bhatt Bunglow, Nr. Sanjeevani Medical Store, Jamnagar - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aascs8645J (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS and in fact, the assessing officer issued the notice under section 142(1) of the Act, asking the assessee

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

section 142(1) of\nthe Act, theassessee submitted its reply on 4th January 2021, which is\nreproduced below:\n“4th Janauary, 2021\nTo Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax,\nNational e Assessment Centre,\nDelhi\nDear Sir,\nSub: Assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the IT Act for A.Y. 2018-19 Ref: Notice DIN:\nITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2020-21/1028932555(1) (Point

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

142(1)\nof the Act and in response to that notice, assessee had submitted name, address,\nPAN number and copy of the ledger account of the lenders from the assessee\nbook and bank statement etc. Besides, the assessing officer also issued notice\nunder section 133(6) of the Act to the lenders calling for the return of income\nand other

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:

142(1) on 05.10.2015. The assessee filed details as well as written submissions. The Assessing Officer observed that Profit & Loss account and Balance Sheet is maintained by the assessee revealing that the assessee made investments in shares of it’s subsidiary Rotec EPP Composites Pvt. Ltd. The only income likely to arise from this investment is dividend which is exempt

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.

TDS details. Therefore, it can be safely deduced that the AO carried out enquiry with regard to labour expenses and after application of mind on the material produced by the assessee, he accepted the genuineness of the expenses incurred. This fact can be verified from the notice issued under section 142

BAN LABS PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.202/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ban Labs Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Ban House, Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Income Tax-1, Nagar, Gondal Road (South), Rajkot Rajkot-360004 (Gujarat) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacb8999C (Appellant) (Respondent)

142(1) of the Act, the assessee submitted its reply, dated 06.01.2021 which is placed at Paper Book Page No. 25. The relevant portion of the reply is reproduced below: ITA No.202/RJT/2024/AY.2018-19 Ban Labs Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT “f. Details of investments made during the year under consideration are attached herewith for your reference. The details have been provided

M/S. SAVALIA COTTON GINNING & PROCESSING PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.12/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 Savalia Cotton Ginning & Pressing Pr. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax-1, Plot No.242, Rajkot. Opp. 66 Kva Power Station, Shaper(Veraval) Dist. Rajkot.

142(1) of the Act requiring the assessee to furnish the necessary details. The relevant details sought by the AO during the assessment proceedings stand as under” i. Details of secured and unsecured loans taken during the year ii. Detail of person from whom land taken and confirmation from them along with sources thereof 6.2 The assessee in response

SMT. SHEETAL RASHMIN PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE I. T. O. WARD-2, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statistical\npurposes

section (u/s.) 143(3) of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), vide order dated 18.12.2009.\n2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, are as followed:\n1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Assessing\nOfficer has erred in making reference to DVO u/s. 142A of the Act?\n2.Whether, on facts

M/S PHOENIX PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Madhumita Roy)

section 142(1) of the Act, dated 5-9- 2013 read as under: 6. Furnish the TDS credit with reconciliation

ACTIONWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.317/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Actionware India Pvt. Ltd. The Pr.Cit-1 बनाम 316, Sagar Arcade Rajkot. Gandal Road Vs. Opp: Union Bank Of India Rajkot 360 002 (Gujarat) Pan : Aacck 3445 Q (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

section 142(1) of the Act, dated 03.03.2022, which is placed in the assessee`s paper book page no.21, wherein the assessing officer asked the assessee to furnish the bank statement and ledger account in respect of M/s Dishman Carbogen Amcis Limited. In response to the said notice, the assessee furnished its reply before the assessing officer with documentary evidences

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nalong with questionnaire was issued and details were called for under e-\nassessment scheme. The assessee has stated that during the year under\nconsideration, its tax liability for the advance tax purpose based on the average\ngross margin. The prices of palm oil have showed considerable hike resulted in\nreduction

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

TDS. Since, the addition was upheld by invoking\n11\nH\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\ndeemed provision, penalty cannot be levied. The assessee has further stated that\nthe assessment proceeding and penalty proceedings are distinct. In the\nassessment proceedings, the additions may be good but not for penalty. The\nassessee