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) also rejected the alternate contention of the applicants for waiver of interest charged under section 220(2A) of the Act on the ground that the case of the applicants is not covered under section 220(2A) since interest on the applicants has been charged under section 201

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) also rejected the alternate contention of the applicants for waiver of interest charged under section 220(2A) of the Act on the ground that the case of the applicants is not covered under section 220(2A) since interest on the applicants has been charged under section 201

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 arises only when the payment is chargeable to tax in India. The assessee has made payment in respect of its foreign agents, services in respect of its foreign sales to the foreign customers, the commission has been paid to the agent for procuring export orders; the question is whether the services rendered by the agent situated outside India

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.

TDS arises only when the payment is chargeable to tax in India. The assessee has made payment in respect of its foreign agents, services in respect of its foreign sales to the foreign customers, the commission has been paid to the agent for procuring export orders; the question is whether the services rendered by the agent situated outside India

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 & paid for labour expenses, revenue loss, since the deductee has paid the due tax on labour expenses of Rs. 4,93,22,122/-. ITANo.83/RJT/2024 Ashok Kumar Project India P. Ltd. Since, there is no failure on part of assessee-company to section 201

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS [ITA. No.\n1092/Mds/2015]\nWe have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant\nmaterial on record. Section 200A of the Act provides for processing of the statement of\nTDS by making adjustment as provided in that Section. For the purpose of convenience,\nwe are reproducing the provisions of Section 200A:\n\"200A (1) Where a statement

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

201 of the Act., no disallowance could be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. L. L. Electricals vs. ITO Asst.Year –2018-19 Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any or more grounds of appeal on / or before the hearing of appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment

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

SHRI JAYANTILAL P. SATIKUNVAR,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-2(3),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-reduction of TDS on payments made for security charges of the " 2,17,743/-. 6. Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had made aforesaid payment to M/s Jay Bhole Security Services and relied upon the legal proposition that once the payee/recipient had offered the aforesaid receipts

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)

TDS. Further the corrugated boxes are printed materials or as per specification of the assessee, which are supplied after the test report/certificate by the assessee. The above products could not be sold to anybody else, then the assessee because of pre-printed in nature. Therefore why provisions of section 201

M/S. ARRONE CERAMIC,AT VAGHASIYA, TALUKA WAKANER vs. THE JCIT TDS RANGE, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 201(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 5. The learned CIT (A), NFAC has erred in upheld in the imposition of penalty u/s.271C even though no order u/s.201 (1) has been passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, TDS

POLOPLUS CONTAINERS,SURENDRANAGAR vs. ASSISSTANT DIRECTOR OF I.T. CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms,

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.436&437/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19&2019-20

TDS was not deducted under section 40(a) (ia) of the Act, amounting to Rs.2,57,795/-, was made in the order under section 143(1) of the Act, dated 13.05.2019, by the assessing officer ( CPC-assessing officer). 8. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer (CPC-assessing officer), the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before

POLO PLUS CONTAINERS,SURENDRANAGAR vs. DCIT CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms,

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.436&437/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19&2019-20

TDS was not deducted under section 40(a) (ia) of the Act, amounting to Rs.2,57,795/-, was made in the order under section 143(1) of the Act, dated 13.05.2019, by the assessing officer ( CPC-assessing officer). 8. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer (CPC-assessing officer), the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before

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

TDS default amount was computed by the assessing officer at Rs.24,90,166/-. The assessee has also been treated, as assessee in default, under section 201

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

TDS default amount was computed by the assessing officer at Rs.24,90,166/-. The assessee has also been treated, as assessee in default, under section 201

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)

201(1A) of the Act and created differential tax with interest from the assessee. The appellant therefore in support contended that the provisions of section 194C are applicable to the assessee on the annual maintenance charges paid to Suzlan Globe Services Ltd. for which the assessee relies on CBDT Circular No. 715and 720 explanation (a) to section 194J and explanation

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)

201(1A) of the Act and created differential tax with interest from the assessee. The appellant therefore in support contended that the provisions of section 194C are applicable to the assessee on the annual maintenance charges paid to Suzlan Globe Services Ltd. for which the assessee relies on CBDT Circular No. 715and 720 explanation (a) to section 194J and explanation

SERVEWELL HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCE,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statical purpose

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

TDS. The Ld. CIT(A) Page 3 of 6 M/s. Servewell Household Appliance has rejected the appeal on the account of professional tax to be paid, without any discussion in the order. (ii) On the contrary, the Ld. DR has relied of the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard rival contention of both the parties and perused material available

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

TDS. Since, the addition was upheld by invoking\n11\nH\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\ndeemed provision, penalty cannot be levied. The assessee has further stated that\nthe assessment proceeding and penalty proceedings are distinct. In the\nassessment proceedings, the additions may be good but not for penalty. The\nassessee