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(1)(c

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(1)(c

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(1)(c

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(1)(c

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(1)(c

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

c) Explanation 2 has been inserted in section 195(1), w.e.f A.Y. 1962-63 to clarify that obligation to comply with section 195(1) and to make deduction there under applies and shall be deemed to have always applied and extends and shall be deemed to have always extended to all persons, resident or non-resident, whether

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.

1. Jaya Inc. Korea Commission Rs.12,13,74,525 No 2. Yuyao Shenghao Intl Co China Commission Rs. 80,21,825 No Ltd. 3. Baruffi Andrea Switzerland Commission Rs. 10,35,000 No 4. C & D Logistics Group Co China Commission Rs. 5,98,740 No Ltd 5. Climus Maxus Ltd Hong-Kong Commission

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

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.

1) of section 115VZC; or (c) an order passed by a Principal Commissioner or Commissioner 80[under section 12AA or section 12AB] or under clause (vi) of sub-section (5) of section 80G or under section 263 or under section 270A or under section 271 or under section 272A or an order passed by him under section 154 amending

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.

1) of section 115VZC; or (c) an order passed by a Principal Commissioner or Commissioner 80[under section 12AA or section 12AB] or under clause (vi) of sub-section (5) of section 80G or under section 263 or under section 270A or under section 271 or under section 272A or an order passed by him under section 154 amending

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

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

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

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

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

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

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