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

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

TDS officer for non-deduction of taxes at source towards purchase of property. However, it was submitted that as per Section 253 of the Act, there is no such sub-Section under which appeal could be filed before the Tribunal, and accordingly the present appeal is not maintainable in the first instance. 6. We have been perused the rival contentions

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

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

section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a "sufficient cause" for not Apex Irrigation presenting appeal within prescribed time. In the interest of justice, we take a judicious view and we condoned the delay in filing appeal by 461 days 7. Brief facts of the case

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

5) of the Act, empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after reason\nexplained by the assessee, It is also a settled position by Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR\n1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 that whatever substantial justice and technical\nconsiderations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial

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

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