BHARAT NARSHIBHAI PATEL,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Us.

TDS under section 194A read with section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The facts in brief are that the assessee

AMITSINH NANABHA RANA,,WANKANER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, MORBI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2012-13 Amitsinh Nababha Rana Ito, Ward-1 At. Divijay Nagar Vs Morbi. Wankaner. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent)

Section Name of the party Amount TDS 194A Gruh Finance Ltd. 6895 690 194C IVRCL Ltd. 2091670 20918 193 Sahara

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)

194A of the Act. From the data for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2016-17, it was observed by the assessing officer that assessee had received interest on enhanced compensation paid for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land, at Rs.1,89,62,258/-, Further, from the computation of income, it was noticed by the assessing officer that assessee had claimed TDS

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)

194A of the I.T. Act. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The second respondent having wrongly deducted an amount of Rs. 2,07,416/- by way of tax deducted at source out of the amount of Rs. 20,74,157/- payable to the petitioner under section 28 of the Act of 1894 and having

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

POLOPLUS CONTAINERS,SURENDRANAGAR vs. ASSISSTANT DIRECTOR OF I.T. CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms,

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.436&437/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19&2019-20

TDS on such payment u/s 194A of the Act, on bona-fide belief. In this regards, it is submitted by the Id Counsel that since the payee are duly assessed to Income Tax and has duly shown the respective income in the income statement filed and therefore the same is not disallowed

POLO PLUS CONTAINERS,SURENDRANAGAR vs. DCIT CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms,

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.436&437/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19&2019-20

TDS on such payment u/s 194A of the Act, on bona-fide belief. In this regards, it is submitted by the Id Counsel that since the payee are duly assessed to Income Tax and has duly shown the respective income in the income statement filed and therefore the same is not disallowed

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

TDS\nu/s 194A of the Act;\nd) The Ld. assessing officer did not conduct any sort of\nenquiry/investigation and had not issued any notices u/s.133(6)/131_to\nthe lenders and their bankers to verify the transactions;\ne) The Ld. assessing officer had not provided the copies of contrary\nmaterial/evidence and statements of 3rd parties for rebuttal and also\ndid

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita Nos. 498 & 499/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2020-21 बनाम Gopal Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Plot No.2322-2324, Gidc Metoda, Income Tax Vs. Lodhika, Rajkot, Gujarat-360021 Circle-1(1), Rajkot Pan : Aadcg6113A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala & Shri K. K. Maloo, Ars. राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit.Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025

TDS u/s 194A of the Act; d) The Ld. assessing officer did not conduct any sort of enquiry/investigation and had not issued any notices u/s.133(6)/131 to the lenders and their bankers to verify the transactions; e) The Ld. assessing officer had not provided the copies of contrary material/evidence and statements of 3rd parties for rebuttal and also

SHREE DEEPKALA PROCESSORS,JETPUR vs. THE ACIT(CPC) TDS, GHAZIABAD

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

TDS 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1) WE LEARNED DEPARTMENT HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS SHORT PAYMENT OF 41,543 AND WRONGLY RAISED THE DEMAND WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION AND CLARIFICATION. 2) HE LEARNED DEPARTMENT HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS INTERST 9292.50 AND WRONGLY RAISED THE DEMAND WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION AND CLARIFICATION

SHANTI DEVELOPERS,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 827/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shanti Developers The Dcit, Circle – 1(1), V-88, Opp. S.R.P. Quarter, 150Ft Ring Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Race Course Road, Ghanteshwar, Jamnagar Road, Ring Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360006 Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abpfs2815R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS, as it is below the prescribed limit of T.D.S. 14. Moreover, on the identical facts, the issue under consideration, is also covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Rajkot, in the case of Aryaland Enterprise, in ITA 224/Rjt/2019, vide order dated 14.09.2022, wherein it was held as follows: “10. We have heard the rival contentions

SHANTI DEVELOPERS,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 827/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shanti Developers The Dcit, Circle – 1(1), V-88, Opp. S.R.P. Quarter, 150Ft Ring Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Race Course Road, Ghanteshwar, Jamnagar Road, Ring Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360006 Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abpfs2815R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS, as it is below the prescribed limit of T.D.S. 14. Moreover, on the identical facts, the issue under consideration, is also covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Rajkot, in the case of Aryaland Enterprise, in ITA 224/Rjt/2019, vide order dated 14.09.2022, wherein it was held as follows: “10. We have heard the rival contentions

H J ENTERPRISE,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

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

section 68 must be based on the overall factual matrix, and in this case, the AO's conclusion is fully supported by corroborative evidence. Page 3 of 6 M/s. H J Enterprise Rajkot In light of the above, I find no merit in the appellant's arguments. The reassessment has been carried out in accordance with law, and the addition

DAWN CHEMICALS,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

194A of the Act and was deposited.. We further note that the assessment order has confirmed that the assessee attended from time to time and furnished the details as required by AO in respect of cash credit of ₹ 11,00,000/-, the AO vide para 7 of the notice has called for the details of cash credits stating: Provide