DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, RAJKOT vs. ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SWISS SINGAPORE INDIA PVT. LTD., GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

TDS u/s. 194C has been duly deducted on all such charges paid to Shiv Shipping and other handling agents. In support of its claim, the appellant has also furnished the copy of sample agreement entered into with the above said handling agents. 36. Further, the appellant has also furnished the summary of the aforesaid agreements pertaining to three different

ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, GANDHIHDAM, GANDHIDHAM, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

TDS u/s. 194C has been duly deducted on all such charges paid to Shiv Shipping and other handling agents. In support of its claim, the appellant has also furnished the copy of sample agreement entered into with the above said handling agents. 36. Further, the appellant has also furnished the summary of the aforesaid agreements pertaining to three different

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

43B of the I.T. Act, 1961.\n(2). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs. 13,343/-u/s\n2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the LT. Act, 1961.\n(3). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of interest on\ndelayed payment of TDS amounting

THE ACIT GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM vs. SOFTEL MACHINES LIMITED , GANDHIDHAM ( KUTCH)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

section 43B of the Act. The assessee has not given any submission. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.23,88,973/- was disallowed by the assessing officer in view of the provision u/s 43B of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee. 9. About disallowance on account of non-deduction of TDS

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S EAGLE MOTORS PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

43B totaled to Rs. 3,68,54,079/- and income as per the original return was Rs. 32,05,900/- and therefore, the revised return should have been Rs.4,00,59,797/-, against which the revised return is only Rs. 3,12,26,463/- and therefore there is no explanation of the remaining sum of Rs. 88,33,516/-. Therefore

RAVIRAJSINH KISHORSINH JADEJA,RAJKOT vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, grounds of Appeal raised by the appellant are hereby Dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 48/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Ravirajsinh Kishorsinh Jadeja Vs. Adit Cpc 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No. 312 Silver Chambers, Tagore Road, Rajkot – 630002 (Gujrat) 48/1 48/2, Beratenaagrahara Begur, House Rd, Uttarahali Hobli, Karnataka - 560100 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahjpj0961H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sumit Shingala, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27 / 11 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20 / 01 /2026

TDS of Rs.14,30,767/- and accordingly refund of Rs.6,90,980/- was claimed. Appellant is providing Security Services to various organization by way of deploying personnel at various sites. In this, Appellant need to incur considerable amount of salary expenses for personnel so employed. Appellant is also required to follow provident fund law Ravirajsinh Kishorsinh Jadeja and law related

POLO PLUS CONTAINERS,SURENDRANAGAR vs. DCIT CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms,

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.436&437/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19&2019-20

43B of the I.T. Act, 1961. (2) That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 2,57,795/- on account of 30 percent of various payment on which TDS has not been deducted u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. (3) That, the findings of the Ld. assessing officer

POLOPLUS CONTAINERS,SURENDRANAGAR vs. ASSISSTANT DIRECTOR OF I.T. CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms,

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.436&437/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19&2019-20

43B of the I.T. Act, 1961. (2) That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 2,57,795/- on account of 30 percent of various payment on which TDS has not been deducted u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. (3) That, the findings of the Ld. assessing officer