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

201(A) of the Act, the applicants (the assessee and his wife) filed application/ appeal before Ld. CCIT(TDS). In the application before Ld. CCIT(TDS), the assessee stated that due to non-awareness of the provisions of Section 1941A of the Act, they have given the cheque of Rs. 3

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.

3,72, 31,560/- on 19-10-2015, but failed to deduct tax at source as required under section 194-IA of the Act. Accordingly, the TDS I.T.A Nos. 22 & 23/Rjt/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 5 Smt. Bhavnaben Shitalbhai Ravani & Smt. Shitalbhai Rasiklal Ravani vs. CCIT(TDS) Officer charged interest of " 1, 45,203/- u/s 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.

3,72, 31,560/- on 19-10-2015, but failed to deduct tax at source as required under section 194-IA of the Act. Accordingly, the TDS I.T.A Nos. 22 & 23/Rjt/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 5 Smt. Bhavnaben Shitalbhai Ravani & Smt. Shitalbhai Rasiklal Ravani vs. CCIT(TDS) Officer charged interest of " 1, 45,203/- u/s 201

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) Direx Systems Limited Vs ACIT, CPC-TDS (ITAT CHENNAI)\n(4) Dr. C. Fernandes Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs DCIT, CPC- TDS\n(ITAT BANGALORE)\n(5) M/s. M.G.N. Khalsa High School Vs ACIT, CPC-TDS (ITAT AMRITSAR)\n(6) Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS (ITAT AMRITSAR) - (ITA\nNo.90/Asr/2015 dated

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

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)

201,assessee- company is not liable to deduct TDS on Expenses of Rs. 19,18,481/- (Rs. 21,84,141/- is outstanding labour balance as on 31.03.2018). (C) Applicability for section 263 We would like to submit that we have provided details for labour expenses, party- wise along with TDS deducted on the same at the time of scrutiny assessment

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

3 of 20 ITA No.816/Rjt/2025 -AY 2012-13 ITO vs. Avadh Agri Exports non-resident companies were not having their permanent establishment. Hence, even if the commission had been received by the non-residents on account of the business connections mentioned in section 9(1)(i) of the Act, the same was not chargeable in India because such non-resident

DENA GUJARAT GRAMIN BANK (BHUJ BRANCH),BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-4, , GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Section 200(3) of the Act. As per the facts of the present case, the statement u/s. 200(3) of the Act was filed by the assessee in the financial year 2007-08 and the limitation for passing the order u/s. I.T.A No. 266/Rajkot/2018 A.Y. 2008-09 Page No 5 Dena Gujarat Gramin Bank vs. ITO 201(1), accordingly expired

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(1) of the Act treating the assessee in default for non-TDS an amount of Rs. 46,68,151/-. Further the A.O. noticed that the assessee company provides various types of discounts such as trade discount/quantity

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

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee purchased two immovable properties amounting to Rs. 3.88 crores and Rs. 64.75 lakhs on which no TDS was deducted under Section 194-IA of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271C of the Act, during the course of which the assessee submitted that the seller

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)

section 194C of the Act. However the Assessing Officer rejected the above submissions and levied a sum of Rs. 1,51,78,485/- for failure to deduct tax u/s. 201(1) r.w.s. 194C of the Act. The A.O. also levied interest of Rs. 54,64,255/- u/s. 201(1A) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed

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

In the result, ground number 8 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed

TDS was deducted on the reimbursement element. The AO disallowed the quantum of reimbursement element by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and disallowed expenditure amounting to " 31,02,921/-. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) gave partial relief to the assessee with the following observations: I.T.A No. 503/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2005-06 Page

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)

3 Shri Jayantilal P. Satikunvar vs. ACIT 4. Accordingly, ground number 1 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not pressed. Ground number 2: disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act 5. The brief facts in relation to this ground of appeal are that Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the action of the assessing officer in respect

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)

3,50,044/- Short deduction 2,80,036/- Accordingly the interest levied @ 1% on such lapse u/s 201(1A) for Rs.67,208/- of the Act is also confirm. In all the addition made for such default for total of Rs.3,47,244/- (2,80,036 + 67,208) is also confirmed. In view of section 201(1) r.w.s. 194J/194C

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)

3,50,044/- Short deduction 2,80,036/- Accordingly the interest levied @ 1% on such lapse u/s 201(1A) for Rs.67,208/- of the Act is also confirm. In all the addition made for such default for total of Rs.3,47,244/- (2,80,036 + 67,208) is also confirmed. In view of section 201(1) r.w.s. 194J/194C

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, Vs Room No. 601, 6th Floor, Pratyakash Odhavram 3, Bhuj, Dist: Kutch, Gujarat - 370001 Kar Bhava, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot - 36001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AIIPG4358D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mehul K Patel and Astha Maniar, ARs. राज"की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR सुनवाई

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, Vs Room No. 601, 6th Floor, Pratyakash Odhavram 3, Bhuj, Dist: Kutch, Gujarat - 370001 Kar Bhava, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot - 36001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AIIPG4358D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mehul K Patel and Astha Maniar, ARs. राज"की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR सुनवाई

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

3) That, the findings of the Ld. assessing officer and Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-In--law. 4. The Grounds of appeal (ITA No. 437/Rjt/2023 for AY 2019-20) raised by the assessee are as follows: (1) That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 1,79,692/- on account