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

6. The SAFCO is an international company having permanent address of 22, 34Gil Nonhyun-Ro, Gangnam-Gu, Seoul, Korea, Tel: 82-2-572-5494, Fax: 82- 2-572-5495 and not having any direct business connection with India. Accordingly, section 195 is not applicable for deducting TDS

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

6% of Tea Tea 4,20,815 General invoice Trading value Total 2.21.28.335 128- ITA Nos. 284, 353, 225 & 226/RJT/2024 Aditya Birla Global Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. It was noticed by the assessing officer that assessee has not deducted TDS on this commission payment as per the provision of section 195

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

6% of Tea Tea 4,20,815 General invoice Trading value Total 2.21.28.335 128- ITA Nos. 284, 353, 225 & 226/RJT/2024 Aditya Birla Global Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. It was noticed by the assessing officer that assessee has not deducted TDS on this commission payment as per the provision of section 195

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

6% of Tea Tea 4,20,815 General invoice Trading value Total 2.21.28.335 128- ITA Nos. 284, 353, 225 & 226/RJT/2024 Aditya Birla Global Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. It was noticed by the assessing officer that assessee has not deducted TDS on this commission payment as per the provision of section 195

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

6% of Tea Tea 4,20,815 General invoice Trading value Total 2.21.28.335 128- ITA Nos. 284, 353, 225 & 226/RJT/2024 Aditya Birla Global Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. It was noticed by the assessing officer that assessee has not deducted TDS on this commission payment as per the provision of section 195

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (2), RAJKOT vs. SHRI NARENDRA NANJIBHAI DAVDA, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS have been made while making such payment to the foreign agents and finally the said Export Sales Brokerage (Commission) of Rs. 1,47,94,267/- wad disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee by the Ld. AO which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence

THE DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT MEENABEN H LAKHANI, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS have been made while making such payment to the foreign agents and finally the said Export Sales Brokerage (Commission) of Rs. 1,47,94,267/- wad disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee by the Ld. AO which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. DRB COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS have been made while making such payment to the foreign agents and finally the said Export Sales Brokerage (Commission) of Rs. 1,47,94,267/- wad disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee by the Ld. AO which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S DML EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS have been made while making such payment to the foreign agents and finally the said Export Sales Brokerage (Commission) of Rs. 1,47,94,267/- wad disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee by the Ld. AO which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. D.M.L. WORLD TRADE PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS have been made while making such payment to the foreign agents and finally the said Export Sales Brokerage (Commission) of Rs. 1,47,94,267/- wad disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee by the Ld. AO which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. DRB COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS have been made while making such payment to the foreign agents and finally the said Export Sales Brokerage (Commission) of Rs. 1,47,94,267/- wad disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee by the Ld. AO which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S DML EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194H would come into play when the payer has not deducted the tax at source on the sum paid/credit in the account of a resident. Ultimately the Ld. AO came to a conclusion that as per amended provision of Sec. 195(1) of the Act the appellant is liable to deduct tax at source

M/S. D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194H would come into play when the payer has not deducted the tax at source on the sum paid/credit in the account of a resident. Ultimately the Ld. AO came to a conclusion that as per amended provision of Sec. 195(1) of the Act the appellant is liable to deduct tax at source

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194H would come into play when the payer has not deducted the tax at source on the sum paid/credit in the account of a resident. Ultimately the Ld. AO came to a conclusion that as per amended provision of Sec. 195(1) of the Act the appellant is liable to deduct tax at source

THE ITO, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM vs. M/S TERAPANTH FOODS LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06

TDS and pay the same to Government account as per the provisions of Section 195 of the Act. The ld. D.R. further submitted that Section 172(1) will not apply to payment for time charter of ships and the provisions of Section 195 are attracting to the payment as the income to the ship owner was accrued to the assessee

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)

6,55,242/-, on account of labour expenses of Rs. 21,84,141/- Your honour has issued notice on account of expenses claimed for Rs. 9,29,67,709/- in profit & loss account but TDS was not deducted on labour expenses of Rs. 4,35,38,841/- were, assessee- company has claimed that labour expenses

M/S. EPP COMPOSITES PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, , RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Epp Composites Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Plot No.2646, Gidc Metoda, Of Income Tax, Rajkot – 1. Rajkot. [Pan – Aabce 2957 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Respondent By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R Per Suchitra Kamble: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.03.2018 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Rajkot For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 195, as there was no income chargeable in India. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Limited (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC), Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 1 (SC) and Maruti Suzuki India Limited

SHRI SHITALBHAI RASIKLAL RAVANI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO(TDS)-2, RAJKOT

Accordingly, in our considered view, the present appeal is not maintainable and hence the present appeal is being dismissed as non- maintainable

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

195 of the Act in respect of a payment made to a non-resident (including a foreign company) being a resident of a country or specified territory outside India with whom India has entered into an agreement referred to in section 90 or 90A of the Act, and where — (a) a dispute regarding the tax payable in India in respect

AHLSTROM FIBER COMPOSITES (I) P. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

TDS in terms of section 195 of the Act also and since no tax had been deducted at source, he held the expenses liable to be disallowed in terms of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee objected to the disallowance before the DRP who upheld the disallowance proposed by the AO, applying section