JAYESHBHAI KANJIBHAI DANGARIYA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

6 and also Gajanan Constructions V. DCIT, 73 taxmann.com 380 and contended that intimation generated after processing TDS statement is subject to rectification under section 154 and appealable under section 246A, since demand issued by the AO is deemed to be a notice of payment under section 156. The ld.CIT(A) has dismissed appeals of the assessees on the basis

RAKESH BASANTILAL LADDHA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

6 and also Gajanan Constructions V. DCIT, 73 taxmann.com 380 and contended that intimation generated after processing TDS statement is subject to rectification under section 154 and appealable under section 246A, since demand issued by the AO is deemed to be a notice of payment under section 156. The ld.CIT(A) has dismissed appeals of the assessees on the basis

SHRI FALGUN N. SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS-2, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarasstt.Year : 2007-08 Shri Falgun N. Sheth Ito, Tds-2 Prop. Of Falgun Steel Traders Vs Rajkot. 10-Mavdi Plot Gondal Road Rajkot. Pan : Aexps 3307 M

6) of Rs.2,19,556/- and interest liability for late collection under section 206C(7) of the Act at Rs.1,58,080/-. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee contended that the scrap sold by the assessee, not being generated during any manufacturing activities of the assessee, did not qualify as scrap for the purpose of TCS under section 206C

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

6) Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS (ITAT AMRITSAR) - (ITA No.90/Asr/2015 dated 09-06-2015) (7) Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital, Dobi BK Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS (ITAT PUNE) (8) GSSS Hari KE Kalan ICT Society Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS (ITAT AMRITSAR) (9) DABRA Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS (ITAT AMRITSAR) (10) GITA STAR HOTELS and RESORTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS) [2015] 62 taxmann.com 59/70 SOT 167 (Bang.-Trib), the ITAT observed as below:- "Section 206C(1A) mandates that any person responsible for collecting tax under section 206C(1) need not do so if he obtains a declaration from the buyer that he is purchasing the goods for use in manufacturing, processing or producing articles or things. It does

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS) [2015] 62 taxmann.com 59/70 SOT 167 (Bang.-Trib), the ITAT observed as below:- "Section 206C(1A) mandates that any person responsible for collecting tax under section 206C(1) need not do so if he obtains a declaration from the buyer that he is purchasing the goods for use in manufacturing, processing or producing articles or things. It does

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS) [2015] 62 taxmann.com 59/70 SOT 167 (Bang.-Trib), the ITAT observed as below:- "Section 206C(1A) mandates that any person responsible for collecting tax under section 206C(1) need not do so if he obtains a declaration from the buyer that he is purchasing the goods for use in manufacturing, processing or producing articles or things. It does

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS) [2015] 62 taxmann.com 59/70 SOT 167 (Bang.-Trib), the ITAT observed as below:- "Section 206C(1A) mandates that any person responsible for collecting tax under section 206C(1) need not do so if he obtains a declaration from the buyer that he is purchasing the goods for use in manufacturing, processing or producing articles or things. It does

GOPALLAL RAMPRASAD KABRA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, TDS-3, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is being restored to the file of ITO (TDS) with the above directions

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal. Total Tax Effect 28,72,848/-

section 206C(6) and 206C(7) of the Act, the ITO(TDS) has erred in facts and in law in imposing

SUNDERLAL CHOTMAL JAIN,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, TDS WARD-3, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jamnagar. However The Assessing Officer Issued A Show Cause Notice Dated 18-08-2015, 01-06-2016 That The Assessee Has Not Collected Tcs To The Tune Of Rs. 4,28,432/- Sale Of Scraps For The For The Relevant Assessment Year 2012-13 & Assesse Has Not Filed Statement In Form 27Eq.

TDS) “……6. Section 206C of the Act pertains to profits and gains from the business of trading in liquor, forest

INCOME TAX OFFICER,TDS-3, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR vs. SAMPATLAL BADRILAL SOMANI, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.298/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Tds – 3, Vs. Sampatlal Badrilal Somani 2Nd Floor, Taranjali Proprietor Of S. B. Metal Udyog, Buildign, P. N. Marg, Plot No. 4/A/1, Nr. Kriti Weight Jamnagar – 361008 Bridge, Shanker Tekri, Udyognagar, Jamnagar – 361004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahhps0245D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 206C(6) & 206C(7) of the Income tax Act, 1961, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has allowed the appeal of the assessee, observing as follows: 3. Ground no.1 is general and hence, not adjudicated separately. The same is dismissed. Ground no. 2,3,4, and 5 are directed against the grievance

ARHAM ENTERPRISE,DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE ITO(TDS), WARD-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinhashri Diesh Mohan Sinha

TDS), Shop No.3, 8 – B, Sarvoday Society, B, Sarvoday Society, Ward – 1, Nr. Hargange Weigh Bridge, Nr. Hargange Weigh Bridge, Aayakar bhavan, Amruta Estate, Aayakar bhavan, Amruta Estate, Veraval (Shaper) - 360025 M. G. Road, Rajkot – 360001 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AATFA1101C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav

ARHAM ENTERPRISE,RAJKOT vs. ITO, TDS-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinhashri Diesh Mohan Sinha

TDS), Shop No.3, 8 – B, Sarvoday Society, B, Sarvoday Society, Ward – 1, Nr. Hargange Weigh Bridge, Nr. Hargange Weigh Bridge, Aayakar bhavan, Amruta Estate, Aayakar bhavan, Amruta Estate, Veraval (Shaper) - 360025 M. G. Road, Rajkot – 360001 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AATFA1101C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav

ARHAM ENTERPRISE,DIST. RAJKOT vs. ITO(TDS), WARD-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinhashri Diesh Mohan Sinha

TDS), Shop No.3, 8 – B, Sarvoday Society, B, Sarvoday Society, Ward – 1, Nr. Hargange Weigh Bridge, Nr. Hargange Weigh Bridge, Aayakar bhavan, Amruta Estate, Aayakar bhavan, Amruta Estate, Veraval (Shaper) - 360025 M. G. Road, Rajkot – 360001 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AATFA1101C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav

ARHAM ENTERPRISE,RAJKOT vs. ITO, TDS-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinhashri Diesh Mohan Sinha

TDS), Shop No.3, 8 – B, Sarvoday Society, B, Sarvoday Society, Ward – 1, Nr. Hargange Weigh Bridge, Nr. Hargange Weigh Bridge, Aayakar bhavan, Amruta Estate, Aayakar bhavan, Amruta Estate, Veraval (Shaper) - 360025 M. G. Road, Rajkot – 360001 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AATFA1101C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav

M/S. G. K. TRADRES ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, TDS-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

TDS-I, Rajkot holding that the appellant-assessee was in default u/s 206C(1) read with sub-sections (6) and (6A) and of the Act for not collecting

JAYSUKH NANJI KORADIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.336 & 337/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Income Tax Officer. Jaysukh Nanji Koradiya, Tds-3, Vs. Plot No.426/1, Jamnagar. Nr.Geb Office, Gidc, Stu, Jamnagar.

TDS), Jamnagar treating it as non-maintainable. He ought to have admitted the appeal and decide case on merit since Ld.AO has treated assessee as ‘’assessee in default’’ u/s.206C(6)/(7) specially when assessee was not liable to file TCS return as required by section 206C

JAYSUKH NANJI KORADIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.336 & 337/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Income Tax Officer. Jaysukh Nanji Koradiya, Tds-3, Vs. Plot No.426/1, Jamnagar. Nr.Geb Office, Gidc, Stu, Jamnagar.

TDS), Jamnagar treating it as non-maintainable. He ought to have admitted the appeal and decide case on merit since Ld.AO has treated assessee as ‘’assessee in default’’ u/s.206C(6)/(7) specially when assessee was not liable to file TCS return as required by section 206C