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.

160 TTJ 0001 (Mumbai). Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the assessing officer are distinguishable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, if the income is not chargeable to tax in India, as per section 195 of the Income Tax, the assessee is not required to deduct TDS. In this regards, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

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 details as per form 26AS with the income declared by you. In this regard, I am enclosing herewith the form No.26AS with the income declared by me at Annexure-H. Please furnish copies of the last assessment order in your case and if any addition/disallowances were made therein or any earlier order what is the present appellate result

KANTABEN VAJUBHAI PAGHADAL,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.552/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Kantaben Vajubhai Paghadal Vs. It-Office, New Aayakar At- Charan Samadhiyala, Bhawan, Jetpur – 360370(Gujarat) Rajkot - 360370 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxmpp2962D (Appellant) (Respondent)

1, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai v. ITO (2016) 388 ITR 343 and the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in case of Mukeshkumar K. Patel in ITA No. 246/AHD/2015 dated 26.09.2017. After examination of the facts and evidences, as collected and the binding law as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Jurisdictional Gujarat

BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIA,JETPUR vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 156/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Babubhai Kanjibhai Sakariya Vs. Ito, Wd 1(2)(1), Rajkot Plot No. 82 Satyam Park, Amarnagar Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Jetpur,(Rajkot-Gujarat) -360370 Road, Rajkot 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agnps7407C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

TDS amounting to Rs. 18,96,225/-, which substantiates that the corresponding income is solely attributable to him. Furthermore, as observed from the AO's order, the assessee had initially distributed the interest income on compensation among other individuals and subsequently received the same back as a gift. In view of these facts, the AO has rightly added the entire

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

160 taxmann.com 474 (Bombay)  Amar Jewellers Ltd. v. DCIT [2018] 92 taxmann.com 4 (Guj.)  Sunbarg Tradelink (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2016] 74 taxmann.com 16 (Guj.)  Mahadev Trading Co. v. ITO [2012] 18 taxmann.com 353 (Ahd.) b) The notices u/s 148A(b) and 148 of the Act and the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act are in violation of Section

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

160 taxmann.com 474 (Bombay)  Amar Jewellers Ltd. v. DCIT [2018] 92 taxmann.com 4 (Guj.)  Sunbarg Tradelink (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2016] 74 taxmann.com 16 (Guj.)  Mahadev Trading Co. v. ITO [2012] 18 taxmann.com 353 (Ahd.) b) The notices u/s 148A(b) and 148 of the Act and the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act are in violation of Section

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)

160/-. 3. Later on, Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (in short “Ld PCIT”) exercised his jurisdiction, under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The case records of the assessee- company was perused carefully by learned PCIT. On perusal of case records, it was noticed that during the year under consideration

ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUJ-W-201-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.731/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2023-24) (Hybrid Hearing)

TDS, TCS, Self Assessment Tax) 06 Tax Net Amount Payable 0 2,89,160 Payable 2 ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS i. The AO CPC has ignored that the assessee being a non-trading, mutual organization without any distribution of income to the members, it has to be taxed at normal rates and not at MMR rates. This

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC DELHI, DELHI

TDS return etc. of the parties with whom alleged\ntransactions made.\n(viii) On the basis of facts and circumstances, AO has correctly adopted\nthe figures of G.P of Rs.2,40,30,182/- which is as per show cause notice.\nHowever, assessee was free to substantiate its claim with documentary\nevidences, which assessee failed even in response to draft assessment

M/S. SHRI RAMKRISHNA TRANSPORT COMPANY,PORBANDAR vs. THE PR. CIT-4, JAMNAGAR

In the result, order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Act is directed to be set-aside

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

160/-. Subsequently, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar initiated 263 proceedings on the ground that on verification of the assessment records and the ledger of transport charges for the year under consideration, it is seen that the transportation charges of Rs. 9,22,996/- paid by the assessee firm pertains to the expenditure of preceding Shri Ramkrishna Transport Company

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.111 To 113/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16

TDS return etc. of the parties with whom alleged transactions made. (viii) On the basis of facts and circumstances, AO has correctly adopted the figures of G.P of Rs.2,40,30,182/- which is as per show cause notice. However, assessee was free to substantiate its claim with documentary evidences, which assessee failed even in response to draft assessment order

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC CIT(A), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.111 To 113/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16

TDS return etc. of the parties with whom alleged transactions made. (viii) On the basis of facts and circumstances, AO has correctly adopted the figures of G.P of Rs.2,40,30,182/- which is as per show cause notice. However, assessee was free to substantiate its claim with documentary evidences, which assessee failed even in response to draft assessment order

SHRI K M MODI KAUTUMBIC TRUST,PORBANDAR vs. ADIT,CPC, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Diesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 715/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri K.M. Modi Kautaumbic Trust Vs. The Adit, Cpc Shri K. M. Modi Kautaumbic Trust Income Tax Office, Aayakar Pratish, Station Road, Porbandar Bhavan, Race Course Ring 360575 Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabts8458H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ankit Anadkat, Ld. Ar, Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/01/2025

160/- on 14.07.2018. 5. As per section 164 of the Act, 1961 as being a only trust created by will, means income of the trust has to tax normal rate and tax payable worked out at Rs. 1193/- and there was a TDS of Rs. 27,301/- refund of Rs. 26.110/- was claimed. 6. According to the assessee