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

200/-, on account of penalty under Customs Act, 1962 and debited the same in the Profit & Loss account, which is not allowable expenses as per section 37(1) of the Act. Moreover, the penalty is not compensatory in nature, hence, addition made by the assessing officer may be sustained. 13. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted

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

200/-, on account of penalty under Customs Act, 1962 and debited the same in the Profit & Loss account, which is not allowable expenses as per section 37(1) of the Act. Moreover, the penalty is not compensatory in nature, hence, addition made by the assessing officer may be sustained. 13. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted

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

200/-, on account of penalty under Customs Act, 1962 and debited the same in the Profit & Loss account, which is not allowable expenses as per section 37(1) of the Act. Moreover, the penalty is not compensatory in nature, hence, addition made by the assessing officer may be sustained. 13. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted

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

200/-, on account of penalty under Customs Act, 1962 and debited the same in the Profit & Loss account, which is not allowable expenses as per section 37(1) of the Act. Moreover, the penalty is not compensatory in nature, hence, addition made by the assessing officer may be sustained. 13. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted

M/S. L. L. ELECTRICALS,RAJKOT vs. THE NEAC, DELHI , DELHI

In the result, ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is being set aside to the file of Assessing Officer with the aforesaid directions

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

200 and Section 40(a)(ia) read together. Further, on perusal of the copies of Income-tax returns of the respective parties filed by the appellant, it is noticed that neither of these parties have claimed TDS on interest paid to them. In view of the above detailed discussion, no Infirmity is found in the action

PARSHWA PRINT PACK PVT. LTD.,,WADHWAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS deducted on interest payments. However, the AO noticed that there were cash deposits in the bank account of loan parties before transferring the amount to the assessee company. Therefore, the AO to verify the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the loan parties summoned all the above mentioned parties under section

PARSHWA PRINTPACK PVT. LTD.,,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS deducted on interest payments. However, the AO noticed that there were cash deposits in the bank account of loan parties before transferring the amount to the assessee company. Therefore, the AO to verify the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the loan parties summoned all the above mentioned parties under section

PARSHWA PRINT PACK PVT. LTD.,,WADHWAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS deducted on interest payments. However, the AO noticed that there were cash deposits in the bank account of loan parties before transferring the amount to the assessee company. Therefore, the AO to verify the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the loan parties summoned all the above mentioned parties under section

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

200/-, by treating the same, as capital expenditure, not allowable under section 35D of the Act.[ This is ground No.2 of cross objection No. 23 and ground No. 2 of cross objection No. 24.] (ii) Ground No.2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of depreciation of land cost of windmill

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

200/-, by treating the same, as capital expenditure, not allowable under section 35D of the Act.[ This is ground No.2 of cross objection No. 23 and ground No. 2 of cross objection No. 24.] (ii) Ground No.2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of depreciation of land cost of windmill

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

200/-, by treating the same, as capital expenditure, not allowable under section 35D of the Act.[ This is ground No.2 of cross objection No. 23 and ground No. 2 of cross objection No. 24.] (ii) Ground No.2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of depreciation of land cost of windmill

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

200/-, by treating the same, as capital expenditure, not allowable under section 35D of the Act.[ This is ground No.2 of cross objection No. 23 and ground No. 2 of cross objection No. 24.] (ii) Ground No.2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of depreciation of land cost of windmill

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

200/-, by treating the same, as capital expenditure, not allowable under section 35D of the Act.[ This is ground No.2 of cross objection No. 23 and ground No. 2 of cross objection No. 24.] (ii) Ground No.2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of depreciation of land cost of windmill

DEPUTY COMMIOSSIONER OF INCOMETAX, JAMNAGAR vs. VASANTBHAI MULJIBHAI KANANI, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, whereas appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.124/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Dy. Cit, Cir-1 Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani बनाम Jamnagar. Plot No.7, Ambica Enterprise Vs. Sardar Patel Ind. Estte-4 Indira Road Opp: Jakat Naka, Jamnagar-361004 (Guj) Pan : Aitpk 8038 P आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.08/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani Dy. Cit, Cir-1 बनाम Plot No.7, Ambica Enterprise Jamnagar. Sardar Patel Ind. Estte-4 Vs. Indira Road Opp: Jakat Naka, Jamnagar- 361004 (Guj) Pan : Aitpk 8038 P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent)

200/- such action is against the natural justice.” 4. Ground Nos.1, 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue relates to one issue, that is, deleting the addition of Rs.3,47,91,594/-, made by the assessing officer resorting to the provisions of section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of difference of purchases shown in Form 26AS

KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION CO,TALALA, JUNAGADH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

In the result, ground no.2(e ) raised by the assessee, is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.608/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Krishna Construction Co. The Dcit, Cir.1(1) बनाम Below Dr.Antalas Hospital Rajkot. Station Road, Talala (Gir) Vs. Junagadh. Pan : Aaifk 8897 P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri R.D. Lalchandani, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini:

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ld.Counsel for the assessee has fairly agreed that the assessee paid such amounts to the Chartered Accountant, against his fee, without deducting TDS, therefore, the fee being paid by firm without deducting TDS, hence the addition of Rs.12,600/- may be confirmed.We have heard both the parties. We accept the prayer

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC DELHI, DELHI

section 250 was issued scheduling the hearing through Video Conferencing on\n09.02.2024 at 3.00 PM, However, there was no response from the appellant to the\nsaid opportunitygranted for hearing which is far from truth and facts of the circumstances\nof the case for the reason that the said letter was issued to the assessee requesting\nITA Nos. 111-113/Rjt/2024A.Ys

PRANAM ENTERPRISE,JUNAGADH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.391/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pranam Enterprise Vs. The Dcit Office No.3, City Centre, Opp. Circle-1(1), Rajkot New Collector Office, Junagadh – 362001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffp7926H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Respondent By Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am:

3) of the Act, is greater than that of the determined in the return processed, under clause(a) of sub-section 1 of Section 143 of the Act, therefore, assessee has underreported its income to the extent of Rs.1,18,000/-. Accordingly, the assessee is liable to pay penalty on account of under reported income as a consequence

SINGHVI TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHIDHAM vs. ITO, WARD - 2, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS of\nTotal\nRs. 17,62,070/-,\nRs. 83,200/-,\nRs. 21,203/-.\nRs. 18,66,470/-\nThe Ld. AO noted that assessee purchase goods from unauthorized dealer\namounting to Rs. 17,62,070/-. That the AO of the view that the purchases\nshown by the assessee from un-registered dealers is not believable. The assessee\nhad simply tried