GOJIYA BHIKHUBHAI,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

260/-, for the year under\nconsideration. The assessee`s case was selected for complete scrutiny, as in the\ncase of assessee, a survey u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on the business\npremises of the assessee. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,\n1961 ('the Act' for short) was finalized on 15/04/2021 accepting the returned

M/S. D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

260 CTR 0073, wherein it has been held that “Expenses are not liable to be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of short deduction of tax at source”. The relevant paragraph of the judgement is reproduced hereunder for the sake of brevity: “We are of the view that the provisions of section

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

260 CTR 0073, wherein it has been held that “Expenses are not liable to be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of short deduction of tax at source”. The relevant paragraph of the judgement is reproduced hereunder for the sake of brevity: “We are of the view that the provisions of section

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

260 CTR 0073, wherein it has been held that “Expenses are not liable to be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of short deduction of tax at source”. The relevant paragraph of the judgement is reproduced hereunder for the sake of brevity: “We are of the view that the provisions of section

H J ENTERPRISE,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

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

260/- as against originally assessed income of Rs. 58,28,760/- 4. That the assessee filed an appeal against the order of AO dated 16.12.2016 before the Ld.CIT (A) and confirmed the addition with following remarks: The law is well settled that mere furnishing of documentary evidence is not conclusive where the surrounding facts indicate a sham transaction. The satisfaction

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT vs. SUNSHINE TILES COMPANY PVT. LTD., MORBI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 649 /Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2011-12) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Sunshine Tiles Company Pvt. Tax, Cir-1(1), Rajkot Ltd. Vs. Room No. 502, Aayakar Bhavan, S. No. 150 160/P1, B/H Sunhil Race Course Ring Road, Ceramics 8-A, National Highway, Rajkot – 360001 Rajkot – 360001 [Pan No.: Aancs3264L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), vide order dated 23.08.2016. ITA No. 649/Rjt/2024 AY. 2011-12 SUNSHINE TILES COMPANY P. LTD. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law on facts in deleting the addition