ADHYAKSHYA LOK MELA AMLIKARAN SAMMITTEE,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, RAJKOT

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy, आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 424 & 425/Rjt/2018 वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Adhyakshya Lok Mela Amlikaran Ito Sammittee Vs. Ward-1(2), A.D. Vyas & Co., Kotecha Nagar Rajkot Main Road, Opp. Kotecha Girls High School, Rajkot-360001 Pan: Aabaa0922F Assessee By : Shri D. M. Rindani, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Common Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Rajkot Dated 24/03/2014 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In- After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010- 11. First, We Take Up Ita 424/Rjt/2018, An Appeal By The Assessee For The Ay 2009-10 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground No 1 Order Of The Learned Cit 1 Rajkot Reopening The Assessment U/S 263 Is Totally Bad On Facts As Well On Law. Learned Cit Ought To Have Considered The Fact That The Assessee Is Already Assessed U/S 143(3) By Ito 1(2) Rajkot.

TDS amount. Initially, the order passed under section 263 of the Act was not challenged by the assessee before the higher forum i.e. ITAT. ITA Nos.424&425/Rjt/2018 A.Ys. 2009-10 &2010-11 6 13. The AO in pursuance to the direction of the learned CIT under section 263 of the Act enhanced the income of the assessee by the amount

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.

20-12- 2019 for assessment year 2016-17. Since common issues are involved in both the appeals under consideration before us, the same are being disposed of by way of a common order. Ms Bhavna Shital Ravani has taken the following grounds of appeal “1. Whether on the fact and in circumstances of the case, an original order

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.

20-12- 2019 for assessment year 2016-17. Since common issues are involved in both the appeals under consideration before us, the same are being disposed of by way of a common order. Ms Bhavna Shital Ravani has taken the following grounds of appeal “1. Whether on the fact and in circumstances of the case, an original order

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

3) read with Section 144B of the Act. Accordingly, we accept the contention of the Assessee that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the doctrine of merger would apply. Therefore, we reject the contention of the Revenue that the CIT(A) erred in entertaining and adjudicating the grounds raised by the Assessee in appeal before

SHRI NIRMAL RAJENDRA JAGETIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO (TDS-3), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS\nsubsequently. Thus, the grounds of appeal nos. 2 and 4 of the assessee are\nallowed subject to this direction.\n14.17 The ground of appeal no. 5 of the assessee is that the AO has erred in law\nas well as on fact to levy the charges amounting to Rs. 12,48,800/- as assessee is\nnot liable to deduct

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.

3) of that section Held, yes" 8. Therefore, assessing officer observed that in the assessee`s case, since the assessee has not deducted tax at source, nor he has taken any approval from the assessing officer, therefore, the payments to non-resident of Rs. 13,96,33,023/-, is not eligible as an allowable expense, in computing the total income

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

section 9(1) of the Act". 5. Further, the assessee in its written submission dated 23.03.2015, relied on various decisions of Hon'ble I.T.A.T. and High Courts for no TDS to be deducted/ is required while making the payment and therefore, no disallowances to be made on these issues. The assessee further stated that the Page 3 of 20

SHRI DIPTEN AHINDRA BHOWMICK,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

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

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

20,000/- in a day aggregates to Rs. 7,54,000/- only. Thus, the AO invoked the provision of section 40A(3) of the Act and made the disallowances of Rs. 7,54,700/- only. 8. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT(A). 9. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that for the year

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)

TDS deducted party- wise, for which the assessee had already provided the details vide Submission 03.02.2021 (Page No. 10-11 of Paper Book) and Submission No. 2, dated 5 dated 10.04.2021 (Page No. 17-18 of Paper Book). After considering the above details, the assessing officer has verified the details and passed assessment order u/s. 143(3) with due application

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

3. Rajesh UAE UAE 11 cents per Tea 72,967 kg Verma 4. Delmon Star UAE IRAN 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

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

3. Rajesh UAE UAE 11 cents per Tea 72,967 kg Verma 4. Delmon Star UAE IRAN 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

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

3. Rajesh UAE UAE 11 cents per Tea 72,967 kg Verma 4. Delmon Star UAE IRAN 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

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

3. Rajesh UAE UAE 11 cents per Tea 72,967 kg Verma 4. Delmon Star UAE IRAN 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

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)

20,000/-. So question of disallowances u/s 40A(3) of the Act does not arise. Further these expenses also do not attract to the provision of TDS as it is below the prescribed limit of T.D.S. 3. Further all the details of expenses of Rs. 3,66,32,345/- with bills/vouchers was there at the time of survey. Without

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)

20,000/-. So question of disallowances u/s 40A(3) of the Act does not arise. Further these expenses also do not attract to the provision of TDS as it is below the prescribed limit of T.D.S. 3. Further all the details of expenses of Rs. 3,66,32,345/- with bills/vouchers was there at the time of survey. Without

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

3. Aggrieved against the same the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-3. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the order of the AO holding that the assessee has not proved that Section 194 (I) were not applicable to its case and also not deducted TDS. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Ld. AO does

VINAY INFRATECH PVT LTD,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 101/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 M/S Vinay Infratech Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of 110-112, Silver Chamber, Vs. Income Tax, Tagore Road, Rajkot-1, Rajkot. Rajkot.

3 HDFC A/c 03.12.2016 25,00,000/- As per Bank - No.03798470000046 Certificate 4. Oriental Bank of 05.12.2016 25,00,000/- As per bank - Commerce A/C Certificate 09231100002149 5. HDFC A/C 05.12.2016 25,00,000/- As per bank - No.03798470000046 Certificate 6. HDFC A/C No. 05.12.2016 25,00,000/- As per bank - 03798470000046 Certificate 7. Oriental Bank

M/S. RADHE EXIM PVT. LTD. ,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.75/Rjt/2021 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 M/S. Radhe Exim Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Plot No.G-557, Vs. Of Income-Tax-1, Gidc Metoda, Rajkot. Kalawad Road, Metoda, Rajkot-360021. Pan: Aadcr1763P

20. Further clause (a) of Explanation states that an order shall be deemed to be erroneous, if it has been passed without making enquiries or verification, which should have been made. In our considered view, this provison shall apply, if the order has been passed without making enquiries or verification which a reasonable and prudent officer shall have carried