INCOME TAX OFFICER,TDS-3, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR vs. SAMPATLAL BADRILAL SOMANI, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.298/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Tds – 3, Vs. Sampatlal Badrilal Somani 2Nd Floor, Taranjali Proprietor Of S. B. Metal Udyog, Buildign, P. N. Marg, Plot No. 4/A/1, Nr. Kriti Weight Jamnagar – 361008 Bridge, Shanker Tekri, Udyognagar, Jamnagar – 361004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahhps0245D (Appellant) (Respondent)

272(A)(2)(k) was also proposed by the assessing officer to the prescribed authority. 5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer, under section 206C(6) & 206C(7) of the Income tax Act, 1961, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has allowed the appeal of the assessee, observing as follows

M/S NIHAL PROJECTS,KACHCHH vs. ITO WARD 2 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

TDS amounting to Rs. 57,298/-. (4). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition amounting to Rs. 25,35,850/- on account of difference in receipts as per books of accounts and form 26AS. (5). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs. 30,50,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits

SHREE SWAMINARAYAN MANDIR TRUST ,RAMPAR vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD - 1, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.340/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2020-21)

TDS on such expenses. The assessee even has failed to explain the nature and bifurcation of such religious expenses claimed. All the above facts prove that the expense claimed by the assessee are non-genuine and without any documentary evidence which point to the fact that all the transactions shown by the assessee in its ITR are manipulated to adjust

M/S. SAVALIA COTTON GINNING & PROCESSING PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.12/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 Savalia Cotton Ginning & Pressing Pr. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax-1, Plot No.242, Rajkot. Opp. 66 Kva Power Station, Shaper(Veraval) Dist. Rajkot.

272, the relevant extract of order is extracted below. Thus, where there are two possible views and the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views, no occasion to exercise powers of revision can arise. Nor can revisional power be exercised for directing a fuller inquiry to find out if the view taken is erroneous, when a view