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) are not appealable before ITAT under section 253 of the Act. We have perused the contents of section 253 of the Act and observe that the appeal of the applicants is not maintainable before us. We are producing the contents of section 253 of the Act for reference: Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal. I.T.A Nos. 22

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) are not appealable before ITAT under section 253 of the Act. We have perused the contents of section 253 of the Act and observe that the appeal of the applicants is not maintainable before us. We are producing the contents of section 253 of the Act for reference: Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal. I.T.A Nos. 22

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

22, 34Gil Nonhyun-Ro, Gangnam-Gu, Seoul, Korea, Tel: 82-2-572-5494, Fax: 82- 2-572-5495 and not having any direct business connection with India. Accordingly, section 195 is not applicable for deducting TDS

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.

section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the returned income of Rs. 1,64,75,250/- without any modifications. Later on, the assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, was issued to the assessee, on 07-08- 2013, which was duly served upon him on 22

PRAMUKH ARANYA DEVELOPERS,JUNAGADH vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

TDS as per section 1941A. Party-wise+ Amount-wise Sales break up for the\nyear is also attached herewith for your perusal. (As per Q-010 Documents filed)\n11) Not Applicable. The sales transaction of Rs. 2,64,60,13,950/- does not belong to\nus. Please furnish more details if any.\n12) Please find herewith:\n•Detail of total

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

TDS. Since, the addition was upheld by invoking\n11\nH\n==End of OCR for page 11==\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

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

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

TDS. Since, the addition was upheld by invoking\n11\nH\n==End of OCR for page 11==\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

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

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

TDS. Since, the addition was upheld by invoking\n11\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 has relied on the various judgements. However, ld CIT(A) rejected the\nabove contention

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

TDS. Since, the addition was upheld by invoking\n\n11\n\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 has relied on the various judgements. However, ld CIT(A) rejected the\nabove contention

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

section 9(1) of the Act. Since the Commission was not chargeable to tax in India, hence there was no requirement to deduct TDS, therefore, Id. Counsel stated that order passed by the Id. CITA, is just and proper, hence it may up be upheld. 22

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

section 9(1) of the Act. Since the Commission was not chargeable to tax in India, hence there was no requirement to deduct TDS, therefore, Id. Counsel stated that order passed by the Id. CITA, is just and proper, hence it may up be upheld. 22

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

section 9(1) of the Act. Since the Commission was not chargeable to tax in India, hence there was no requirement to deduct TDS, therefore, Id. Counsel stated that order passed by the Id. CITA, is just and proper, hence it may up be upheld. 22

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

section 9(1) of the Act. Since the Commission was not chargeable to tax in India, hence there was no requirement to deduct TDS, therefore, Id. Counsel stated that order passed by the Id. CITA, is just and proper, hence it may up be upheld. 22

SHREE SAMARTH SWITCHGEAR AND TRANSMISSION PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

section 142(1) of the Act, asking the assessee to submit details of TDS. In response, the assessee submitted required details of the TDS which is placed at paper book Page no.80. Therefore, we find that in respect of TDS, on contract and sub -contract expenses of Rs.13,00,93,467/-, the assessee has submitted that TDS has already been

SHREE SAMARTH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

section 142(1) of the Act, asking the assessee to submit details of TDS. In response, the assessee submitted required details of the TDS which is placed at paper book Page no.80. Therefore, we find that in respect of TDS, on contract and sub -contract expenses of Rs.13,00,93,467/-, the assessee has submitted that TDS has already been

AHLSTROM FIBER COMPOSITES (I) P. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

22 alternatively, the AO held that the commission expenses were liable to withholding tax in India, since as per the AO, Pohjola Bank Plc had business connection/ permanent establishment(PE) in India in terms of section 9(1)(1) read with explanation 1(a), explanation 2 and 2nd proviso to the Act, as also, in terms of Article

AHLSTROM FIBERCOMPOSITES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

22 alternatively, the AO held that the commission expenses were liable to withholding tax in India, since as per the AO, Pohjola Bank Plc had business connection/ permanent establishment(PE) in India in terms of section 9(1)(1) read with explanation 1(a), explanation 2 and 2nd proviso to the Act, as also, in terms of Article