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

3,27,316/- towards TDS to the seller of the property on 27.09.2015, but the seller did not deposit the same into the govt. account. Thus, it was due to misunderstanding between the assessee and seller the default in payment of TDS had occurred. Accordingly, the assessee requested the Ld. CCIT(TDS) for waiver of interest

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita Nos. 498 & 499/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2020-21 बनाम Gopal Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Plot No.2322-2324, Gidc Metoda, Income Tax Vs. Lodhika, Rajkot, Gujarat-360021 Circle-1(1), Rajkot Pan : Aadcg6113A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala & Shri K. K. Maloo, Ars. राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit.Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025

TDS u/s 194A of the Act; d) The Ld. assessing officer did not conduct any sort of enquiry/investigation and had not issued any notices u/s.133(6)/131 to the lenders and their bankers to verify the transactions; e) The Ld. assessing officer had not provided the copies of contrary material/evidence and statements of 3rd parties for rebuttal and also

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

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

SMT. SHEETAL RASHMIN PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE I. T. O. WARD-2, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statistical\npurposes

TDS certificate issued by M/s.\nEros Stones, Jaipur. During appellate proceedings, appellant has raised the\nsame contentions. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the\nassessee could not able to prove that the jewellery sold be her is the same\njewellery that received from M/s. Eros Jwellers and won in television\ncontest. We further consider that

HARDIKKUMAR MAGANBHAI THUMAR,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1)(1), RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 625/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) Hardikkumar Maganbhai Thumar Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward Jetalsar, Jetalsar Post, Jetpur Rajkot- 1(1)(1),/Rkt. 360360.Gujarat It Office, New Aaykar Bhavan, Vatiaka, Rajkot. Gujarat 360360 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Axupt8837F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kishor Gheewala, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23 / 12 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 / 01 /2026

TDS to Ld. CIT(A). The assessee's case is meritorious and the assessee should be given one more opportunity to submit a detailed explanation to Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR, therefore, made twin prayers ie. the delay in filing of appeal be condoned and this case ought to be remanded to Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh after

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

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

TDS-2 v. Tata Steel Ltd. [2024] 163 taxmann.com 345 (Mumbai - Trib.)  Abdul Azeez Haroon v. DCIT (International Taxation) [2020] (115 taxmann.com 289) (Madras)  Smt. Smriti Kedia v. UOI [2012] (20 taxmann.com 426) (Calcutta) 6. Therefore, the impugned assessment order passed without fulfilling the jurisdictional compliances is vague and bad-in-law. e) The approval accorded by the designated authority

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

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

TDS-2 v. Tata Steel Ltd. [2024] 163 taxmann.com 345 (Mumbai - Trib.)  Abdul Azeez Haroon v. DCIT (International Taxation) [2020] (115 taxmann.com 289) (Madras)  Smt. Smriti Kedia v. UOI [2012] (20 taxmann.com 426) (Calcutta) 6. Therefore, the impugned assessment order passed without fulfilling the jurisdictional compliances is vague and bad-in-law. e) The approval accorded by the designated authority

APEX IRRIGATION,RAJKOT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

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

3. That appeal was to be filed by 29th September 2023. 4. That deponent was not being well-versed in the intricate provisions of taxation and legal procedures, relied entirely on professional guidance for compliance with the appeal filing requirements. 5. That in this way there is a delay of only 493 days for which an application under Section