THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

7 of the assessment order and the very same issue was considered by him at length in connection with the appeal for AY. 2009-10. The facts are identical, subject, however, to the facts that as at the year of end, the assessee’s balance sheet clearly shows interest free advances to some individuals totaling to Rs. 2 Crores., about

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

7 of the assessment order and the very same issue was considered by him at length in connection with the appeal for AY. 2009-10. The facts are identical, subject, however, to the facts that as at the year of end, the assessee’s balance sheet clearly shows interest free advances to some individuals totaling to Rs. 2 Crores., about

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

7 of the assessment order and the very same issue was considered by him at length in connection with the appeal for AY. 2009-10. The facts are identical, subject, however, to the facts that as at the year of end, the assessee’s balance sheet clearly shows interest free advances to some individuals totaling to Rs. 2 Crores., about

THE ITO, WARD-2(2),, JAMNAGAR vs. SMT. SHITALBEN SAURABH VORA,, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.262-263/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S.Surendranagar District D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Milk Producers Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Union Ltd. Surendranagar. Wadhwan City, Surendranagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 17/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 12/01/2018, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 26/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 20012-13 & 2013-14. Ita Nos.262-263/Rjt/2018 A.Y.S 2012-13 To 2013-14 First, We Take Up Ita No. 262/Rjt/2018 For A.Y. 2013-14

b) of LT. Act, 1961. 2. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of contribution to Employees' Provident Fund and Employees' State Insurance of Rs. 4,05,105/- u/s 43B of I.T. Act, 1961 by stating that the same is not deposited within the due date prescribed under section

M/S. SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT CO-OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. ,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE DCIT, SURENDRANAGR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.262-263/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S.Surendranagar District D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Milk Producers Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Union Ltd. Surendranagar. Wadhwan City, Surendranagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 17/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 12/01/2018, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 26/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 20012-13 & 2013-14. Ita Nos.262-263/Rjt/2018 A.Y.S 2012-13 To 2013-14 First, We Take Up Ita No. 262/Rjt/2018 For A.Y. 2013-14

b) of LT. Act, 1961. 2. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of contribution to Employees' Provident Fund and Employees' State Insurance of Rs. 4,05,105/- u/s 43B of I.T. Act, 1961 by stating that the same is not deposited within the due date prescribed under section

HITESH SHAMJIBHAI KATARIA,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, JAMNAGAR.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.370/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Income Tax Officer, Shri Hitesh Shamjibhai Kataria, Ward 3(1), Vs. Pro. Of M/S Kaizen Metals India, Jamnagar. Plot No.375, Gidc, Shanker Tekri, Udhyog Nagar, Jamnagar-361004. Pan: Aqzpk9160E

TDS under section 194H of the Act. As such, the amount of commission income was declared in the income tax return of the respective employees. Asstt. Year 2014-15 4 3.2 The assessee also claimed that a similar amount of commission paid to the employees was allowed in the earlier years. As such, there was no disallowance made

SHRI DIPTEN AHINDRA BHOWMICK,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

TDS where, employee is temporarily posted for a continuous period of fifteen days or more in a place other than his normal place of duty or on a ship & that employee does not have any bank accounts at that place. 2. Where any payment is made to an employee or the heir of any such employee, on or in connection

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,, PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

B Agarwal Vs. DCIT reported in 369 ITR 220 wherein it was held as under: “The appellant has not been able to discharge the burden and it is not impossible. It is a primary onus and which was to be discharged and which has been held as not discharged by providing the requisite details. These are not matters which were

HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

B Agarwal Vs. DCIT reported in 369 ITR 220 wherein it was held as under: “The appellant has not been able to discharge the burden and it is not impossible. It is a primary onus and which was to be discharged and which has been held as not discharged by providing the requisite details. These are not matters which were

THE ITO, WARD 1(3), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S PAVAN CONSTRUCTION CO, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

40A(3) Rs.13,98,537/- (vii) Addition u/s 41(1) Rs.8,12,550/- (viii) Disallowance out of various expenses Rs.2,98,272/- 2. On the facts of the case, Ld.CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is therefore prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be set aside and that

ANKUL CONSTRUCTION CO.,RAJKOT vs. THE ASSIT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , CPC BENGLURU/ITO WD-1(2)(1), RAJKOT

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 484/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) Anukul Constriction Co. Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income 901, Aalap-B, Opp. Shastri Ground, Tax, Cpc Bangaluru / Ito Limda Chowk, Ward 1(2)(1), Rajkot – 360001 Aayakar Bhavan, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfa2385E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Jay Kathrani, Ld. A.R. Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/02/2025

B, Opp. Shastri Ground, Tax, CPC Bangaluru / ITO Limda Chowk, Ward 1(2)(1), Rajkot – 360001 Aayakar Bhavan, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAKFA2385E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Jay Kathrani, Ld. A.R. Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR. TDS,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.628/Rjt/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.375/Rjt/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-14 M/S. Classic Network Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., 202, Arpan Complex, Opp. Vs. Tds Circle, Swaminarayan Mandir, Rajkot. Kalavad Road, Rajkot. Pan: Aabcc8197Q

b) The labour management is a very tricky issue/subject and is handled best when left to the labour contractors. No prudent businessman/business entity will ever enter such an area and burn its/his/her fingers. Further, the labour management is not restricted to making payment to the labourers; c) The theory that the labourers on their own approach the project site

THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.628/Rjt/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.375/Rjt/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-14 M/S. Classic Network Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., 202, Arpan Complex, Opp. Vs. Tds Circle, Swaminarayan Mandir, Rajkot. Kalavad Road, Rajkot. Pan: Aabcc8197Q

b) The labour management is a very tricky issue/subject and is handled best when left to the labour contractors. No prudent businessman/business entity will ever enter such an area and burn its/his/her fingers. Further, the labour management is not restricted to making payment to the labourers; c) The theory that the labourers on their own approach the project site

P P CORPORATION,RAJKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS as per 26AS details with books of account, and explain through documentary evidences the difference, if any. 27. Provide proof for payment of statutory liabilities within stipulated period of time. 28. Details of the expenses/payments made to related parties as mentioned in section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Explain the necessity, reasonability and genuineness

M/S SAFARI FINE CLOTHING PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM. vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM., GANDHIDHAM

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedिनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Acit, Ltd., Vs. Gandhidham Circle Shed No.280/281, A Type, Gandhidham. Sector No.3, Ka Sez, Gandhinagar- Kutch वष" Ito, M/S. Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ward-2, Vs. Ltd., Gandhidham "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajcs 0565 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan L. Agarwal, Ar. Revenue By : S Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/08/2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03/10/2018

TDS u/s 194H of the Act and through banking channel. Therefore, the identity and genuineness of the commission expenses cannot be doubted. The non- response from the commission agent u/s 133(6) of the Act cannot be a ground for making the disallowance of the commission expenses. The assessee filed the income tax return, copies of the bills

PRAMUKH ARANYA DEVELOPERS,JUNAGADH vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee (in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.372 /Rjt/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2018-19) M/S. Pramukh Aranya Developers Office No. 5, First Floor, Cit Centre, Opp. New Collector Officer, B/H. Sardar Baug, Junagadh - 362001 The Pr. Cit-1, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaofp3393F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Appellant By राजस्व की प्रत्यर्थी ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: : 04/02/2025 : 28/04/2025 आदेश / Order By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Dated 30.03.2024, Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax (In Short “Ld Pcit"), Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'), For The Assessment Year2018-19.Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: M/S. Pramukh Aranya Developers V. Pcit

b). Please justify the reasonableness of payments, with evidence and mode of payment. Please furnish copies of acknowledgement for filing of ITR and statement of computation of total income, with its annexures, of the following persons listed against col.23;- Hardasbhai S. Khodbhay Harshben Jagmalbhai Bhatu Raj Virambhai Bhatu 9. With respect to Turnover of Rs. 545206450/- reported in ITR, kindly

PUNABHAI G. PARDAVA,,DHARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(4),, AMRELI

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

B. D. Gupta, Ld. DR Date of Hearing 30/08/2022 Date of Pronouncement 28/09/2022 O R D E R PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 08.04.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Rajkot (in short “CIT(A)”) arising out of the assessment order dated 23.03.2016 passed

M/S. SHIVABYAY PROJECT PVT. LTD. ,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 40(a)(ia) will not be applicable. The relevant portion of the decision of ITAT is reproduced below. I.T.A Nos. 06 & 37/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 5 M/s. Shivabyay Project Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO "Para-9: In respect of controversy involved in ground No. (b), we have heard both sides. The only grievance of revenue is that