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

TDS was made from alleged payment of\ncommission in view of section 194H of the Income tax Act 1961. Therefore the\nclaim of payment of commission amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- was disallowed\nand added to the total income of the assessee. In respect of this addition, penalty\nu/s 271

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

TDS was made from alleged payment of\ncommission in view of section 194H of the Income tax Act 1961. Therefore the\nclaim of payment of commission amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- was disallowed\nand added to the total income of the assessee. In respect of this addition, penalty\nu/s 271

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

TDS was made from alleged payment of\ncommission in view of section 194H of the Income tax Act 1961. Therefore the\nclaim of payment of commission amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- was disallowed\nand added to the total income of the assessee. In respect of this addition, penalty\nu/s 271

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

TDS was made from alleged payment of\ncommission in view of section 194H of the Income tax Act 1961. Therefore the\nclaim of payment of commission amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- was disallowed\nand added to the total income of the assessee. In respect of this addition, penalty\nu/s 271

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

TDS was made from alleged payment of\ncommission in view of section 194H of the Income tax Act 1961. Therefore the\nclaim of payment of commission amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- was disallowed\nand added to the total income of the assessee. In respect of this addition, penalty\nu/s 271

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

TDS was made from alleged payment of\ncommission in view of section 194H of the Income tax Act 1961. Therefore the\nclaim of payment of commission amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- was disallowed\nand added to the total income of the assessee. In respect of this addition, penalty\nu/s 271

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) 253. (1) Any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order— (a) an order passed by a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) before the 1st day of October, 1998 or, as the case may be, a Commissioner (Appeals) under section 154, section 250, section 270A, section 271

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) 253. (1) Any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order— (a) an order passed by a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) before the 1st day of October, 1998 or, as the case may be, a Commissioner (Appeals) under section 154, section 250, section 270A, section 271

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

TDS u/s 195 of the Act and no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, can be made. 17.We find that learned CIT(A) has passed a detailed and speaking order, narrating the facts and narrating the case law, applicable on facts. The assessee, filed written submission before the ld. CIT(A), along with documents and evidences ( which were

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.

TDS automatically will arise. If such an Interpretation of the section is to be made, it will mean that on merely when an amount is credited to a non -resident or payment is made, the income would be said to arise or accrue in India. If the tax under section 195 is to be deducted on every credit

UTSAV COTFAB P. LTD.,JETPUR vs. THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (3), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Mrs. Madhumita Roy(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Utsav Cotfab Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R Survey No. 603P/3/P/1, Ward- 1(2)(3), Khirsara Road, Nr. Jodia Hanuman Rajkot Mandir, Jetpur, Rajkot – 360370 Pan : Aabcu 3825 F अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.07.2023 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta:

Section 250 of the Act. His contention was that during the course of physical hearing before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee had complied to the notices and had filed submissions also before him; but they were not considered by the order passed by the NFAC. As evidence, the copies of the reply filed

M/S. EAGLE CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (2), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Eagle Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, “Ëagle House” Circle-1(2), Rajkot. Near Moti Tanki Chowk, Rajkot – 360 001. [Pan – Aaace 8903 H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R Per Suchitra Kamble:

271(1)(c) of the IT Act on addition on account of interest income of Rs.3,32,587/- is unwarranted, unjustified and bad ion law.” 3. The assessment was completed on 26.03.2015 thereby making the addition in respect of donation, TDS expenses, income from dividends and income from interests by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer under Section

SHRI ANILKUMAR AMARNATH AGARWAL,,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt.Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2013-14 Anilkumaramarnathagarwal Vs. Ito, Ward-1 27/2, Panchvatisociety Jamnagar. Nr.Gaushala Jamnagar 361 008. Gujarat. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022

TDS on the same. Accordingly, this interest income was added to his income and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act initiated

M/S J.K. TRANSPORT & CONSTR. CO.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- I.T.A No. 168/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2004-05 Page No 2 M/s. J.K. Transport & Constr. Co. vs. Dy. CIT “1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Rajkot erred in confirming imposition of penalty u/s. 271

VRAJ AND VAJ CONSTRUCTION,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

TDS returns by TRACES sight of the government of India. At this out set we are discussing this issue with the GE Ahmedabad but this being old matter and in view of some problems in government accounting system we are not in a position of get the correct information from GE hence we request your good self to please

M/S WESTERN INDIA CERAMICS P. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, ground number 4 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Your applicant reserves the right in addition or alteration in the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” Ground number 1: disallowance of interest expense of " 2,36 855/- 3. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that assessee had given

SHRI JAYANTILAL P. SATIKUNVAR,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-2(3),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is being set aside to the file of assessing officer with the aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A No. 255/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 2 Shri Jayantilal P. Satikunvar vs. ACIT 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1). The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, Rajkot has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect

SHIV EXTRUSION,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 646/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Extrusion Vs. Income Tax Officer Plot No.3978 Phase Iiiroad Income Tax Office, Ito Ward No.-R Dared, Jamnagar 2(10), Jamnagar, Income 361004, Gujarat, India, Jamnagar Tax Office, Shiv Smruti, Jamnagar, Jamnagar, Gujarat, 361008, Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abkfs7199F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ramesh M. Patel, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2026

TDS) credit allowed (Rs. 3,41,378/- Hence, the charging of interest under Section 2348 is illegal, notwithstanding its consequential nature. 9. Leave to Add/Amend: The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, or delete any of the above Grounds of Appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal. 3. That the Ld. Council

M/S. GARDEN ENTERPRISE,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, all appeals of assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shree Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.121-122/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/S. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2Nd Floor, Mg Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfg5887C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 40A(3) of the Act which specifically prohibit allowance of such expenses which are either incurred in cash or where no TDS is made. Further, the assessee has not provided any documentary proof (i.e. invoice) in support of genuineness of such expenses incurred. It is also pertinent to mention that in absence of complete details of the third parties