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

TDS therefore would not arise. 24. The Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income- tax vs. Ferromatic Milacron India (P.) Ltd. [2018] 99 taxmann.com 154 (Gujarat) dated 09.10.2018, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has decided the appeal in favour

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

TDS therefore would not arise. 24. The Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income- tax vs. Ferromatic Milacron India (P.) Ltd. [2018] 99 taxmann.com 154 (Gujarat) dated 09.10.2018, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has decided the appeal in favour

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

TDS therefore would not arise. 24. The Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income- tax vs. Ferromatic Milacron India (P.) Ltd. [2018] 99 taxmann.com 154 (Gujarat) dated 09.10.2018, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has decided the appeal in favour

SHRI JAY KHODIYAR MAJOOR S M LTD.,AT CHHALANKA, TAL. VISAVADAR, DIST. JUNAGADH vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee dismissed

Bench: Hri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

27-12-2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and thus erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, in the light of show cause notice and the order passed u/s 263 of the Act and hence the impugned order is bad in law. 2. The learned Principal Commissioner

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. SHRI RASIKLAL KHIMJI MODI,, PORBANDAR

In the result, the aforesaid issues are to restored to the file of Ld

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 69C of the Act with the following observations:- “7.1 So far as addition of direct & indirect expenses of Rs.48,18,072/- is concerned, the AO vide order u/s,154 dtd. 31-01-2011 has reduced the addition to Rs.29,84,412/-. Thus the total addition remains at Rs. 29,84,412/-. On going to the comparable chart

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

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

TDS Rs.5,17,98,259/-. This issue is in ITA No.612/RJT/2024, only. (3) Row expenses, under the direct expenses Rs.1,36,50,985/-, assessee had treated revenue expenditure, however, as per Ld. PCIT it should be capital expenditure.This issue is in ITA No.612/RJT/2024, only. 27. Now we shall take these issues one by one as follows. The first issue raised

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

TDS Rs.5,17,98,259/-. This issue is in ITA No.612/RJT/2024, only. (3) Row expenses, under the direct expenses Rs.1,36,50,985/-, assessee had treated revenue expenditure, however, as per Ld. PCIT it should be capital expenditure.This issue is in ITA No.612/RJT/2024, only. 27. Now we shall take these issues one by one as follows. The first issue raised

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

TDS in terms of section 195 of the Act also and since no tax had been deducted at source, he held the expenses liable to be disallowed in terms of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee objected to the disallowance before the DRP who upheld the disallowance proposed by the AO, applying section

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

TDS in terms of section 195 of the Act also and since no tax had been deducted at source, he held the expenses liable to be disallowed in terms of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee objected to the disallowance before the DRP who upheld the disallowance proposed by the AO, applying section

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

TDS in terms of section 195 of the Act also and since no tax had been deducted at source, he held the expenses liable to be disallowed in terms of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee objected to the disallowance before the DRP who upheld the disallowance proposed by the AO, applying section

SHRI LAKHMAN ARJAN KARMUR,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NETILNAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTER, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, we uphold the order of ld

TDS of " 1,27,507/-. However, the assessee did not file its return of income and subsequently assessment was completed under section

SHRI K M MODI KAUTUMBIC TRUST,PORBANDAR vs. ADIT,CPC, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Diesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 715/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri K.M. Modi Kautaumbic Trust Vs. The Adit, Cpc Shri K. M. Modi Kautaumbic Trust Income Tax Office, Aayakar Pratish, Station Road, Porbandar Bhavan, Race Course Ring 360575 Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabts8458H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ankit Anadkat, Ld. Ar, Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/01/2025

section 164 of the Act, 1961 as being a only trust created by will, means income of the trust has to tax normal rate and tax payable worked out at Rs. 1193/- and there was a TDS of Rs. 27

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

ALPHA HI-TECH FUEL LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SNR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.68/Rjt/2009 (धििाधरणणवध/ Assessment Year 2005-06) Alpha Hi-Tech Fuel Limited, बिाम/ D.C.I.T, Station Road, Surendranagar Vs. Lakhtar, Dist. Surendranagar, Gujarat-382775 स्ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca4258P (अपीला््/Appellant) (प्य््/ Respondent) अपीला््थरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R Shri B.D Gupta, Sr. D.R. प्य््करथरसे/Respondent By: सुिणाईकरतारीख/ Date Of Hearing 08/06/2023 घोवणाकरतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/09/2023 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

27- 02-2023, running from pages 1 to 12 wherein it was inter alia contended as under: 6. Row, before the Hon'ble ITAT the assessee has raised a totally new claim of i.e. setting up of a new industrial undertaking in the FY:2003-04 i.e. AY 2004-05. Though no claim for deduction U/s 80IA(4) was made

M/S PHOENIX PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Madhumita Roy)

27,310/- which was assessed under section 143(3) of the Act, at Rs. 1,77,21,620/- after making the addition for Rs. 1,51,000/-to the total income of the assessee vide order dated 28.03.2014. 5. However, the learned principle CIT subsequently on verification of the assessment records found that the assessee has shown less amount

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

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and we hold that Ld

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) [Through Virtual Court]

TDS u/s. 194C or u/s. 194J. 6. Section 194C contemplate: 194C. (1) Any person responsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereafter in this section referred to as the contractor85) for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work) in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and a specified person shall

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM vs. KAMLESH DEORAJ JAIN, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 594/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Vs. Kamlesh Deoraj Jain, Tax, Bbz-N-108, Khanna Market, Plot No. 20/A, Sector No. 8, Gandhidham, Gandhidham Gandhidham Gujarat 370201 Gujarat 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adopj1769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sunil Maloo, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01 / 12 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/ 01 /2026

TDS amt to Rs. 2,64,42,400/- We note that during the course of proceedings, the assessee also submitted that assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2017-18 the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction made by the assessee with M/s Ankur Chemfood Ltd and M/s Oswal Petrochem, it is quite evident that there is a circular