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

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

Section\n143(1) of the Act. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed.\"\n12. Therefore, we direct the assessing officer to consider the total income\nchargeable to tax to the tune of Rs.58,44,15,970/-. Hence, this appeal filed by\nthe assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.\n13.\nIn the result, appeal filed by the assessee

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

Section 143(1) of the Act. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed.” 12. Therefore, we direct the assessing officer to consider the total income chargeable to tax to the tune of Rs.58,44,15,970/-. Hence, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 13. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee

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 of the Act. The details of such parties to whom the interest was paid stand as under: 1

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

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 India Real 2595 519 194D Bajaj Allianz Life 80259 8026 2181419 30513 4. On question by the AO, the assessee submitted that it has executed the contract which was awarded by the company namely IVRCL LTD. based in Hyderabad

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

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

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

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

1. The Id. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)"]erred on facts as also in M/s. Dawn Chemicals Rajkot law in rejecting the ground of appeal related to validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961. That on facts as also in law, initiation