ASHOKKUMAR PROJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,PORBANDAR vs. THE PR. CIT, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appear of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.83/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Ashokkumar Projects India P. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, 4Th Floor, Manek Centre, P.N. Cholera Arcade, M.G. Road Opposite, Bhaveshwar Mahadev Marg, Jamnagar - 361008 Temple, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamca5891Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

3) of the Act, dated 03/06/2021. 4.Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (in short “Ld PCIT”), has raised other issue stating that the assessee has made payment, which exceeds the threshold limit, as per TDS provisions and is liable to deduct TDS, on aggregating expenses of Rs.21,84,141/-, as per the provisions of section 194C

M/S. FRIENDS SALT WORKS & ALIED INDUSTRIES,,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE , RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

TDS @ 2% u/s 194C is not maintainable therefore I confirm the action of the assessing officer to levy short deduction of tax as required u/s 194J of the Act as under F.Y. 2013-14 Amount of AMC Charges Paid 35,00,437/- Tax deducted @ 2% u/s. 194C 70,008/- Tax deductible @ 10% u/s. 194J 3,50,044/- Short deduction

M/S. FRIENDS SALT WORKS & ALIED INDUSTRIES,,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE , RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

TDS @ 2% u/s 194C is not maintainable therefore I confirm the action of the assessing officer to levy short deduction of tax as required u/s 194J of the Act as under F.Y. 2013-14 Amount of AMC Charges Paid 35,00,437/- Tax deducted @ 2% u/s. 194C 70,008/- Tax deductible @ 10% u/s. 194J 3,50,044/- Short deduction

ITO WARD 3(1)(4), RAJKOT-STATION- AMRELI, AMRELI, GUJARAT vs. AVADH AGRI EXPORTS, AMRELI, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

3 of 20 ITA No.816/Rjt/2025 -AY 2012-13 ITO vs. Avadh Agri Exports non-resident companies were not having their permanent establishment. Hence, even if the commission had been received by the non-residents on account of the business connections mentioned in section 9(1)(i) of the Act, the same was not chargeable in India because such non-resident

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

section 9(1)(i) Whether since non-resident agents had rendered their services outside India and all agents had overseas offices and they were not having any permanent establishment in India, commission paid to them was not liable to tax in India Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee)." 25. In view of the above factual position

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

section 9(1)(i) Whether since non-resident agents had rendered their services outside India and all agents had overseas offices and they were not having any permanent establishment in India, commission paid to them was not liable to tax in India Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee)." 25. In view of the above factual position

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

section 9(1)(i) Whether since non-resident agents had rendered their services outside India and all agents had overseas offices and they were not having any permanent establishment in India, commission paid to them was not liable to tax in India Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee)." 25. In view of the above factual position

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

section 9(1)(i) Whether since non-resident agents had rendered their services outside India and all agents had overseas offices and they were not having any permanent establishment in India, commission paid to them was not liable to tax in India Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee)." 25. In view of the above factual position

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

THE DCIT, CIRCLE TDS,, RAJKOT vs. M\S. APRICOT FOODS PVT. LTD. , METODA, DIST. RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 194C of the Act and the assessee failed to Deduct Tax at Source (TDS). Therefore the Assessing Officer passed an order u/s. 201(1) of the Act treating the assessee in default for non-TDS an amount of Rs. 46,68,151/-. Further the A.O. noticed that the assessee company provides various types of discounts such as trade discount/quantity

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

TDS. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Ld. AO does not require any interference and thereby dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved against the same the assessee is an appeal before us. The assessee raised as many as 10 grounds which are repetition in nature but the solitary issue is disallowance made under Section

THE DCIT, CIRCLE (TDS), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. M/S. GOPAL SNACKS P. LTD., RAJKOT, VILLAGE METODA, TAL. LODHIKA, DIST. RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 194C of the Act. However the Assessing Officer rejected the above submissions and levied a sum of Rs. 1,51,78,485/- for failure to deduct tax u/s. 201(1) r.w.s. 194C of the Act. The A.O. also levied interest of Rs. 54,64,255/- u/s. 201(1A) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed

SHRI JAY KHODIYAR MAJOOR S M LTD.,AT CHHALANKA, TAL. VISAVADAR, DIST. JUNAGADH vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee dismissed

Bench: Hri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS under Section 194C of the Act and there was no reason why disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was not made while framing the impugned assessment year. Further, in absence of any specific restriction on the powers of Ld. PCIT during the course of 263 proceedings itself, which were admittedly not barred by jurisdiction

GOJIYA BHIKHUBHAI,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

section 263 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961.On perusal of assessment records for assessment year\n2018-19, it was noticed by ld. PCIT that the assessee has debited contract and\nsub-contract expenses and job work expenses in the Profit& Loss account\nwithout deducting TDS from the said expenses, as required u/s 194C of the Act.\nTherefore, 30% of such

SHRI VIJAYDAN KISHORDAN GADHAVI,BHUJ KUTCH vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE(TDS), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 194C(6) of the Act is not applicable in respect of such payment provided there is less than 10 Trucks and in these circumstances, there is no need to deduct TDS, however, the assessee needs to file declaration to that effect before the assessing officer. That is, the assessee needs to file only declaration, stating that he has less

SHRI VIJAYDAN KISHORDAN GADHAVI,BHUJ KUTCH vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE(TDS), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 194C(6) of the Act is not applicable in respect of such payment provided there is less than 10 Trucks and in these circumstances, there is no need to deduct TDS, however, the assessee needs to file declaration to that effect before the assessing officer. That is, the assessee needs to file only declaration, stating that he has less

SHREE SAMARTH SWITCHGEAR AND TRANSMISSION PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.On perusal of assessment records for assessment year 2018-19, it was noticed by ld. PCIT that the assessee has debited contract and sub- contract expenses and job work expenses in the Profit& Loss account without deducting TDS from the said expenses, as required u/s 194C of the Act. Therefore, 30% of such

SHREE SAMARTH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.On perusal of assessment records for assessment year 2018-19, it was noticed by ld. PCIT that the assessee has debited contract and sub- contract expenses and job work expenses in the Profit& Loss account without deducting TDS from the said expenses, as required u/s 194C of the Act. Therefore, 30% of such

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,, JAMNAGAR vs. SHRI MILANKUMAR M. POBARU,, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

3 raised by the Revenue reads as under: 3.The Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in deleting Rs.9,28,106 /- made by AO on account of disallowance u/s 14A . 17. The issue relates to disallowance of expenses incurred for the purposes of earning incomes exempt from tax u/s 14A of the Act Brief facts relating to the same