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

TDS. Since, the addition was upheld by invoking\n11\ndeemed provision, penalty cannot be levied. The assessee has further stated that\nthe assessment proceeding and penalty proceedings are distinct. In the\nassessment proceedings, the additions may be good but not for penalty. The\nassessee has relied on the various judgements. However, ld CIT(A) rejected the\nabove contention

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

TDS. Since, the addition was upheld by invoking\n\n11\n\ndeemed provision, penalty cannot be levied. The assessee has further stated that\nthe assessment proceeding and penalty proceedings are distinct. In the\nassessment proceedings, the additions may be good but not for penalty. The\nassessee has relied on the various judgements. However, ld CIT(A) rejected the\nabove contention

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

TDS. Since, the addition was upheld by invoking\n11\nH\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\ndeemed provision, penalty cannot be levied. The assessee has further stated that\nthe assessment proceeding and penalty proceedings are distinct. In the\nassessment proceedings, the additions may be good but not for penalty. The\nassessee

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

TDS. Since, the addition was upheld by invoking\n11\nH\n==End of OCR for page 11==\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\ndeemed provision, penalty cannot be levied. The assessee has further stated that\nthe assessment proceeding and penalty proceedings are distinct. In the\nassessment proceedings, the additions

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

TDS. Since, the addition was upheld by invoking\n11\nH\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\ndeemed provision, penalty cannot be levied. The assessee has further stated that\nthe assessment proceeding and penalty proceedings are distinct. In the\nassessment proceedings, the additions may be good but not for penalty. The\nassessee

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

b) Explanation 2 has been inserted in section 2(47), w.e.f. A.Y.1962-63 to clarify that 'transfer includes and shall be deemed to have always included disposing of or parting with an asset or any interest therein, or creating any interest in any asset in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, absolutely or conditionally, voluntarily or involuntarily

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.

271 (Hyderabad), Hon'ble ITAT "has duly considered the Circular No. 7 dated 22-10-2009, which had withdrawn its earlier Circular Nos. 23 dated 23-7-2009, 163 dated 29-5-1975 and 786 dated 7-2-2000. The Hon'ble ITAT has held that the main thrust is whether the commission made to overseas agents

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:

271(1)(b) of the act Id. AO entirely ignored the factual aspects and the existence of reasonable reasons in this case. 1.3 The reasonable reasons for non-compliance to statutory notices issued u/s. 142(1)of the act are submitted hereunder: 4 Utsav Cotfab Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO AY : 2014-15 1.3.1 The appellant-company has started to experience

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

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, section 271A, section 271J

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, section 271A, section 271J

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

b). The term "asset" includes immovable property, shares, securities, loans, advances, and deposits in a bank account, implying an exhaustive definition that excludes general cash. 8. Error in Charging Mandatory Interest u/s 2348: The NFAC erred in upholding the levy of mandatory interest under Section 2348 (Rs. 2,11,044/-). The net tax liability assessed

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)

271(1)(c) of the I T Act 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 on account of late payment of employee’s contribution to PF 3. At the outset, the counsel for the assessee submitted that

BACKBONE PROJECTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5 is reproduced as under: "15. Insofar as the alleged failure on the part of the assessee to specify in the statement under section 132(4) of the Act regarding the manner in which such income has been derived, suffice it to state that when the statement is being recorded by the authorized officer

THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE PROJECTS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5 is reproduced as under: "15. Insofar as the alleged failure on the part of the assessee to specify in the statement under section 132(4) of the Act regarding the manner in which such income has been derived, suffice it to state that when the statement is being recorded by the authorized officer

VIMALBHAI MOHANBHAI NARIYA PROP. S.M. CORPORATION,,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, , JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, for statistical purpose/

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 359/Rjt/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing)

TDS. iii. It is correct that as per Sec. 206C, TCS Return is required to be filed within the prescribed time as per rule 31AA of the Income Tax Rules. It seems that as per rule 31AA(4)(v) the details of persons who have submitted declaration under sub section (1A) of section 206C is to be given in Form

DREAM INFRASTRUCTURE,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 220/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dream Infrastructure, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mavdi Survey No. 358, B/H. Mavdi Ward-1(1)(1), Village, Kankot Road, Mavdi, Rajkot Rajkot-360004(Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfd2565L (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/12/2025

271(1)(c) of the IT Act is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 4. The Learned ADDL/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in respect of charging the interest u/s. 234A, B C of the I T Act is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified