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)

5) of the I.T. Act has categorically held that payment made under section 28 of the Act of 1894 is enhanced compensation, as a necessary corollary, therefore, the contention that payment made under section 28 of the Act of 1894 is interest as envisaged under section 145A of the I.T. Act and has to be treated as income from other

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)

TDS of Rs.18,95,105/- is being shown in assessee`s PAN and 26AS, therefore, the assessee had claimed the same in his Return of income.The land so acquired by government is agricultural land situated in rural area and hence it is not a capital asset as defined under section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Further

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

TDS is required to be deducted in this case.The taxability of income in India in case of non-residents is governed by section 5 and section 9. In terms of section 5(2

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-3(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. SONPAL EXPORTS PVT. LTD., RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Dcit, Circle – 3(1), Vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd. Rajkot Aayakar Bhavan, Room Dhari Bagsara Road, Nr. Ice No. 114, 1St Floor, Race Course Factory, Amreli Ring Road, Rajkot Pan No.: Aajcs0177N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am; By Way Of This Appeal, The Revenue, Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 16.11.2017, Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Grievances Raised By The Revenue, Which Are Interconnected & Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 13,96,33,023/- Holding That Provision Of Section 195 Will Not Be Applicable. 2. On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred In Ignoring The Facts That The Assessee Has Failed To Prove The Genuineness Of Foreign Commission Expenses Before The A.O. 3. It Is, Therefore, Prayed That The Order Of The C.I.T. (A) May Be Set Aside & That Of The A.O. Be Restored To The Above Extent. Dcit Vs. M/S. Sonpal Export Pvt. Ltd.

5 and 9 of the I.T. Act. Therefore, section 195 should not be read to mean that the moment when any amount is credited or remittance is made to a non- resident; the obligation to deduct TDS automatically will arise. If such an Interpretation of the section is to be made, it will mean that on merely when an amount

M/S NIHAL PROJECTS,KACHCHH vs. ITO WARD 2 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

2). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs. 13,343/-u/s\n2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the LT. Act, 1961.\n(3). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of interest on\ndelayed payment of TDS amounting to Rs. 57,298/-.\n(4). That

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.

TDS)- Ahmedabad rejecting the claim of the applicants for waiver of interest by way of order under section 119(2)(a) r.w.s. 201(1A) and 220(2A) of the Act. 5

SHRI SHITALBHAI RASIKLAL RAVANI & SMT. BHAVNABEN SHITALBHAI RAVANI ,RAJKOT vs. THE CHIEF CIT, TDS, AHMEDABAD

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.

TDS)- Ahmedabad rejecting the claim of the applicants for waiver of interest by way of order under section 119(2)(a) r.w.s. 201(1A) and 220(2A) of the Act. 5

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 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. 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-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 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

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

5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CCIT(TDS) under Section 119(2

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. SENOR METALS PVT. LTD., JAMNAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 260/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-12

section 43(5). It is immaterial whether transaction is carried out at the recognized stock exchange or not. Even the circular of CBDT cited in the assessment order states that once it is established that the assessee has entered in the transaction of the commodity that they deal the other technical details have no material impact. Hence, this reasoning

ATUL AUTO LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

Section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Act. ITA Nos.214&251/Rjt/2016 Atul Auto Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year – 2012-13 20. During the Financial Year 2011-12 the assessee has earned tax free income of Rs. 55,32,792/- being dividend income from investment in Mutual Funds. The assessee on its own made a disallowance of Rs. 3,35,877/- being expenditure

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S ATUL AUTO LIMITED,, SHAPAR.VERAVAL

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

Section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Act. ITA Nos.214&251/Rjt/2016 Atul Auto Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year – 2012-13 20. During the Financial Year 2011-12 the assessee has earned tax free income of Rs. 55,32,792/- being dividend income from investment in Mutual Funds. The assessee on its own made a disallowance of Rs. 3,35,877/- being expenditure

VIPULKUMAR HEMANTLAL POPAT, UPLETA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 72/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010 Vipul H. Popat, I.T.O., Prop. Mathav Agro Industri, Vs. Tds-1, Nilkanthkhandskampound, Rajkot. Dhoraji Road, Upleta, Rajkot. C/O D.R Adhia “Om Shri Padamlaya”, Nr. Trikamrayji Haweli, 16-Jagnath Plot, Dr.Yagnik Road, Opp. Imperial Hotel, Rajkot-360001

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the assesses in default making no TDS in respect of payment of Rs. 19,59,975/- and passing order U/s.201(1) and raising demand of Rs. 39.200/-. The same needs cancellation. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the assesses

PRAMUKH ARANYA DEVELOPERS,JUNAGADH vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

TDS as per section 1941A. Party-wise+ Amount-wise Sales break up for the\nyear is also attached herewith for your perusal. (As per Q-010 Documents filed)\n11) Not Applicable. The sales transaction of Rs. 2,64,60,13,950/- does not belong to\nus. Please furnish more details if any.\n12) Please find herewith:\n•Detail of total