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.

section 194-IA of the Act. Accordingly, the TDS I.T.A Nos. 22 & 23/Rjt/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 5 Smt. Bhavnaben

PUNABHAI G. PARDAVA,,DHARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(4),, AMRELI

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

Section 194-I of the Act, however, no TDS has made by the assessee. Therefore, the entire rent payment of 3,60,000/- disallowed

PRANAM ENTERPRISE,JUNAGADH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.391/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pranam Enterprise Vs. The Dcit Office No.3, City Centre, Opp. Circle-1(1), Rajkot New Collector Office, Junagadh – 362001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffp7926H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Respondent By Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am:

TDS has been deducted under Section 194-IA of the Act and the actual sale consideration which had been received

SHRI CHAMUNDA CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,TDS-2,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.32/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Income Tax Officer, Shri Chamunda Credit Cooperative Tds-2, Vs. Society Limited, Rajkot. Famous Shopping Centre, 150 Feet Ring Road, Near Parijat Party Plot, Chandra Park Main Road, Rajkot-360005. Pan: Aabas9343J

TDS further levied the interest under section 201(1A) of the Act at ₹56,943.00 only. Accordingly, the AO treated the assessee in default under section 201(1)/201 (1A) of the Act and raised the demand of ₹1,16,259.00 ( 59,316 plus 56,943.00) only. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned

M/S. ARRONE CERAMIC,AT VAGHASIYA, TALUKA WAKANER vs. THE JCIT TDS RANGE, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS was deducted under Section 194-IA of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271C of the Act, during

THE ITO, WARD 1(3), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S PAVAN CONSTRUCTION CO, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act on account of cessation of liability.” Respectfully, following the same we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A). Hence, ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. ITA Nos.760 & 761/Rjt/2010 And CO No.32 & 33/Rjt/2010 M/s. Pavan Cosnt. Co. A.Ys. 2005-06 & 2006-07 44. The last issue

INTERMARK SHIPPING AGENCIES P. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-4,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 640/Rjt/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Intermark Shipping Ito Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tds-4, Gandhidham, Ii Floor, Ajanta Comm. Plot No. 32, Sector-3, Center No. 1, Plot No. Gandhidham, Kachchh 277/278, Ward 12-B Gandhidham (Kutch) Pan No. Aaa Ci5 689 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Arvind Sontakka, Dr Assessee By : Shri M. J. Ranpura, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020

TDS is applicable on Intermark Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO AY 2010-11 such reimbursement amount as the case made out by the assessee before the Revenue. However, such plea of the assessee was not found tenable. The Ld. AO was of the view that the certificate issued by the IT authority in favour of Mundra Port and Special

THE ITO (TDS)-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SMT. SAPNABEN VIJAYBHAI SHRIMANKAR, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

194 IA of Act even when the value of property is in excess of Rs. 50,00,000/- and the provision doesn’t discuss anything about no. of transferor and transferor. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on fact that the assessee was not under obligation to deduct TDS as the property acquired

HOLLIS VITRIFIED PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI, GUJARAT, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT, INDIA

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

194 (Rajkot - Trib.) held that where assessee had issued equity share to certain persons and out of 21 persons, only four persons had filed their balance sheets, which showed that huge amount of unsecured loans was availed by them and investments in share capital of assessee-company were made out of borrowed funds but A.O had accepted said share capital