SMT. BHAVNABEN SHITALBHAI RAVANI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO(TDS-2), RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the applicants are dismissed

Bench: Us, The Same Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of A Common Order.

7 Smt. Bhavnaben Shitalbhai Ravani & Smt. Shitalbhai Rasiklal Ravani vs. CCIT(TDS) 144BA or an order passed under section 154

SHRI SHITALBHAI RASIKLAL RAVANI & SMT. BHAVNABEN SHITALBHAI RAVANI ,RAJKOT vs. THE CHIEF CIT, TDS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the applicants are dismissed

Bench: Us, The Same Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of A Common Order.

7 Smt. Bhavnaben Shitalbhai Ravani & Smt. Shitalbhai Rasiklal Ravani vs. CCIT(TDS) 144BA or an order passed under section 154

PARAG MAKANBHAI PARSANA,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

TDS statement is subject to rectification under section 154 and appealable under section 246A, since demand issued by the AO is deemed to be a notice of payment under section 156. The ld.CIT(A) has dismissed appeals of the assessees on the basis of surmises without examining legality of the issue. He further submitted that subsequently, the ld.CIT

VISHAL ENTERPRISE, ,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

TDS statement is subject to rectification under section 154 and appealable under section 246A, since demand issued by the AO is deemed to be a notice of payment under section 156. The ld.CIT(A) has dismissed appeals of the assessees on the basis of surmises without examining legality of the issue. He further submitted that subsequently, the ld.CIT

RAKESH BASANTILAL LADDHA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

TDS statement is subject to rectification under section 154 and appealable under section 246A, since demand issued by the AO is deemed to be a notice of payment under section 156. The ld.CIT(A) has dismissed appeals of the assessees on the basis of surmises without examining legality of the issue. He further submitted that subsequently, the ld.CIT

JAYESHBHAI KANJIBHAI DANGARIYA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

TDS statement is subject to rectification under section 154 and appealable under section 246A, since demand issued by the AO is deemed to be a notice of payment under section 156. The ld.CIT(A) has dismissed appeals of the assessees on the basis of surmises without examining legality of the issue. He further submitted that subsequently, the ld.CIT

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

7) on19/02/2019, in favour of assessee. Further, order u/s 234E of the Act, was also passed dated 17/03/2017, determining late filing fees u/s 234E of Rs. 12,48,800/-. Against the order u/s 234E of the Act, the assessee has filed an application u/s 154 of the Act dated 19/04/2017. Aggrieved by the order u/s 154

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS) Vs Siyaram Metal Udyog Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 78 Taxman.com 157(SC). It needs to mentioned here that the case of Adishankara spinning mills was actually decided the issue whether cotton waste would constitute scrap or not. The question of form 27C late filing was not specifically entertained. A decision can be a precedent on the issue that it decides

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS) Vs Siyaram Metal Udyog Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 78 Taxman.com 157(SC). It needs to mentioned here that the case of Adishankara spinning mills was actually decided the issue whether cotton waste would constitute scrap or not. The question of form 27C late filing was not specifically entertained. A decision can be a precedent on the issue that it decides

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS) Vs Siyaram Metal Udyog Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 78 Taxman.com 157(SC). It needs to mentioned here that the case of Adishankara spinning mills was actually decided the issue whether cotton waste would constitute scrap or not. The question of form 27C late filing was not specifically entertained. A decision can be a precedent on the issue that it decides

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS) Vs Siyaram Metal Udyog Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 78 Taxman.com 157(SC). It needs to mentioned here that the case of Adishankara spinning mills was actually decided the issue whether cotton waste would constitute scrap or not. The question of form 27C late filing was not specifically entertained. A decision can be a precedent on the issue that it decides

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

154 of the Act was incorrect. Aggrieved by this order of the ld.CIT(A) the assessee is now before us , raising the above grounds. 4. Vis-à-vis the ground nos.1 & 4, they are general in nature and need no adjudication. Vis-à-vis ground no.2, that the ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee’s appeal ex parte without considering

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 , RAJKOT vs. ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING(INDIA) PVT.LTD. (SWISS SINGAPORE INDIA PVT. LTD.), GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

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

154 (Gujarat) dated 09.10.2018, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has decided the appeal in favour of the assessee. The findings of the Hon'ble Court is reproduced below: "Section 9, read with sections 195 and 40(a)(i), of the Income-tax Act 1961 and article 7 of the OECD Model Convention Income Deemed to accrue or arise

ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, GANDHIHDAM, GANDHIDHAM, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

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

154 (Gujarat) dated 09.10.2018, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has decided the appeal in favour of the assessee. The findings of the Hon'ble Court is reproduced below: "Section 9, read with sections 195 and 40(a)(i), of the Income-tax Act 1961 and article 7 of the OECD Model Convention Income Deemed to accrue or arise

ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GUJARAT vs. DCIT-ACIT CENT-2 RKT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

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

154 (Gujarat) dated 09.10.2018, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has decided the appeal in favour of the assessee. The findings of the Hon'ble Court is reproduced below: "Section 9, read with sections 195 and 40(a)(i), of the Income-tax Act 1961 and article 7 of the OECD Model Convention Income Deemed to accrue or arise

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, RAJKOT vs. ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SWISS SINGAPORE INDIA PVT. LTD., GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

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

154 (Gujarat) dated 09.10.2018, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has decided the appeal in favour of the assessee. The findings of the Hon'ble Court is reproduced below: "Section 9, read with sections 195 and 40(a)(i), of the Income-tax Act 1961 and article 7 of the OECD Model Convention Income Deemed to accrue or arise

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

154 of the Act, and the application was rejected by the Ld. ADIT/ CPC, Bengaluru. 5. That the assessee filed an appeal against the impugned order dated 22.08.2022 and rectified the order. “In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the disallowance made by the CPC u/s. 40a(ia) for non-compliance of TDS provisions. The disallowance made

SHRI DIPTEN AHINDRA BHOWMICK,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

154 Taxman 33 wherein it was held as under: It is equally well-settled that where a cause is consciously abandoned (as in the present case) the party seeking condonation has to show by cogent evidence sufficient cause in support of its claim of condonation. The onus is greater. One of the propositions of settled legal position is to ensure

SMT. CHANDRIKABEN THAKARSHIBHAI LANGHNOJA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD- 2 (2) (3), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

section 154 and therefore confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before us with the delay of 118 days in filing the above appeal. 5.1 Registry has noted that there is a delay of 118 days in filing appeal by the assessee