SHRI SHITALBHAI RASIKLAL RAVANI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO(TDS)-2, RAJKOT

Accordingly, in our considered view, the present appeal is not maintainable and hence the present appeal is being dismissed as non- maintainable

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS officer for non-deduction of taxes at source towards purchase of property. However, it was submitted that as per Section 253 of the Act, there is no such sub-Section under which appeal could be filed before the Tribunal, and accordingly the present appeal is not maintainable in the first instance. 6. We have been perused the rival contentions

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

TDS was made from alleged payment of\ncommission in view of section 194H of the Income tax Act 1961. Therefore the\nclaim of payment of commission amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- was disallowed\nand added to the total income of the assessee. In respect of this addition, penalty\nu/s 271(1)(c) was also initiated for concealment of income

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)

153A(1) (b)/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961,( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Since, these five appeals filed by the Revenue and four cross objections of assessee, pertain to the same assessee and identical and common issues are involved, therefore, these appeals of revenue and cross objections of assessee, have been clubbed and heard together

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)

153A(1) (b)/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961,( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Since, these five appeals filed by the Revenue and four cross objections of assessee, pertain to the same assessee and identical and common issues are involved, therefore, these appeals of revenue and cross objections of assessee, have been clubbed and heard together

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)

153A(1) (b)/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961,( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Since, these five appeals filed by the Revenue and four cross objections of assessee, pertain to the same assessee and identical and common issues are involved, therefore, these appeals of revenue and cross objections of assessee, have been clubbed and heard together

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)

153A(1) (b)/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961,( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Since, these five appeals filed by the Revenue and four cross objections of assessee, pertain to the same assessee and identical and common issues are involved, therefore, these appeals of revenue and cross objections of assessee, have been clubbed and heard together

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)

153A(1) (b)/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961,( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Since, these five appeals filed by the Revenue and four cross objections of assessee, pertain to the same assessee and identical and common issues are involved, therefore, these appeals of revenue and cross objections of assessee, have been clubbed and heard together

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

TDS was made from alleged payment of\ncommission in view of section 194H of the Income tax Act 1961. Therefore the\nclaim of payment of commission amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- was disallowed\nand added to the total income of the assessee. In respect of this addition, penalty\nu/s 271(1)(c) was also initiated for concealment of income

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

TDS was made from alleged payment of\ncommission in view of section 194H of the Income tax Act 1961. Therefore the\nclaim of payment of commission amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- was disallowed\nand added to the total income of the assessee. In respect of this addition, penalty\nu/s 271(1)(c) was also initiated for concealment of income

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

TDS was made from alleged payment of\ncommission in view of section 194H of the Income tax Act 1961. Therefore the\nclaim of payment of commission amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- was disallowed\nand added to the total income of the assessee. In respect of this addition, penalty\nu/s 271(1)(c) was also initiated for concealment of income

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

TDS was made from alleged payment of\ncommission in view of section 194H of the Income tax Act 1961. Therefore the\nclaim of payment of commission amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- was disallowed\nand added to the total income of the assessee. In respect of this addition, penalty\nu/s 271(1)(c) was also initiated for concealment of income

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

TDS was made from alleged payment of\ncommission in view of section 194H of the Income tax Act 1961. Therefore the\nclaim of payment of commission amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- was disallowed\nand added to the total income of the assessee. In respect of this addition, penalty\nu/s 271(1)(c) was also initiated for concealment of income