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

TDS. The penalty confirmed is totally\nunjustified on facts was also in law and may kindly be deleted.\n5.\nThe relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are\nas follows. The assessee, before us, is an in individual and has originally filed\nreturn of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, on 30.09.2008, declaring total income

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

MANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA,RAJKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.318/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Sakariya The Pr.Commissioner Of बनाम At Khajuri Gundala Income Tax-1, Rajkot. Post Station: Vavdi Vs. Amarnagar, Khajuri Gundala. Pan : Aslps 7027 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ld.Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

5 Kanjibhai Sakariya, assessee brother) as narrated in the assessment order dated 21.12.2018 in the case of assessee brother Shri Babubhai Kanjibhai Sakariya. The assessing officer has not properly verified/ examined the facts of the case and the issue under consideration. Therefore, assessment order has been passed without making due inquiry/verification. Hence, in terms of Explanation 2 to section

KANTABEN VAJUBHAI PAGHADAL,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.552/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Kantaben Vajubhai Paghadal Vs. It-Office, New Aayakar At- Charan Samadhiyala, Bhawan, Jetpur – 360370(Gujarat) Rajkot - 360370 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxmpp2962D (Appellant) (Respondent)

c) because the right to receive payment under the 1894 Act is not in doubt. 55. It is important to note that compensation, including enhanced compensation/consideration under the 1894 Act, is based on the full value of property as on the date of notification under Section 4 of that Act. When the court/tribunal directs payment of enhanced compensation under Section

BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIA,JETPUR vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 156/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Babubhai Kanjibhai Sakariya Vs. Ito, Wd 1(2)(1), Rajkot Plot No. 82 Satyam Park, Amarnagar Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Jetpur,(Rajkot-Gujarat) -360370 Road, Rajkot 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agnps7407C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

TDS amounting to Rs. 18,96,225/-, which substantiates that the corresponding income is solely attributable to him. Furthermore, as observed from the AO's order, the assessee had initially distributed the interest income on compensation among other individuals and subsequently received the same back as a gift. In view of these facts, the AO has rightly added the entire

SHRI NIRMAL RAJENDRA JAGETIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO (TDS-3), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

C. Fernandes Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs DCIT, CPC- TDS\n(ITAT BANGALORE)\n(5) M/s. M.G.N. Khalsa High School Vs ACIT, CPC-TDS (ITAT AMRITSAR)\n(6) Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS (ITAT AMRITSAR) - (ITA\nNo.90/Asr/2015 dated 09-06-2015)\n(7) Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital, Dobi BK Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS\n(ITAT PUNE

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

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

5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CCIT(TDS) under Section 119(2)(a) r.w.s. 201(1A) and 220(2A) of the Act. Before us, the assessee is filed their written submissions in support of the case. At the outset, the Ld. DR submitted that the aforesaid appeal as not maintainable before

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. SENOR METALS PVT. LTD., JAMNAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 260/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-12

1. During the year under consideration the assessee has made payment to Clearing & Forwarding agency for their services as service charges & has made TDS u/s 194C on the same amount. 2. The C&F has made payments to the transporters on behalf of the assessee amounting to Rs. 32,60,146/- , for which the assessee had made reimbursement

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S ATUL AUTO LIMITED,, SHAPAR.VERAVAL

The appeal is allowed

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

C). The assessee failed claim the deduction in the ITA Nos.214&251/Rjt/2016 Atul Auto Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year – 2012-13 original return of income filed under Section 139(1) and the same is not allowable. 15. Per contra, the Ld. A.R. appearing for the assessee supported the order of the CIT(A) and also submitted that the Revised return were

ATUL AUTO LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeal is allowed

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

C). The assessee failed claim the deduction in the ITA Nos.214&251/Rjt/2016 Atul Auto Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year – 2012-13 original return of income filed under Section 139(1) and the same is not allowable. 15. Per contra, the Ld. A.R. appearing for the assessee supported the order of the CIT(A) and also submitted that the Revised return were

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)

C. Thacker, vehemently argued that assessee, has huge funds of Rs.28,34,76,940/-, available, as on 31-03-2011, on which no interest is payable, as against interest-free advances given to parties of Rs.4,35,00,000/-. This included Rs.2,15,00,000/- given to Maharaja Salt Works, as advance for purchase of salt. The said party failed

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)

C. Thacker, vehemently argued that assessee, has huge funds of Rs.28,34,76,940/-, available, as on 31-03-2011, on which no interest is payable, as against interest-free advances given to parties of Rs.4,35,00,000/-. This included Rs.2,15,00,000/- given to Maharaja Salt Works, as advance for purchase of salt. The said party failed

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)

C. Thacker, vehemently argued that assessee, has huge funds of Rs.28,34,76,940/-, available, as on 31-03-2011, on which no interest is payable, as against interest-free advances given to parties of Rs.4,35,00,000/-. This included Rs.2,15,00,000/- given to Maharaja Salt Works, as advance for purchase of salt. The said party failed

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)

C. Thacker, vehemently argued that assessee, has huge funds of Rs.28,34,76,940/-, available, as on 31-03-2011, on which no interest is payable, as against interest-free advances given to parties of Rs.4,35,00,000/-. This included Rs.2,15,00,000/- given to Maharaja Salt Works, as advance for purchase of salt. The said party failed

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)

C. Thacker, vehemently argued that assessee, has huge funds of Rs.28,34,76,940/-, available, as on 31-03-2011, on which no interest is payable, as against interest-free advances given to parties of Rs.4,35,00,000/-. This included Rs.2,15,00,000/- given to Maharaja Salt Works, as advance for purchase of salt. The said party failed

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS provisions, the assessee can be declared to be an assessee in default u/s. 201 of the Act and no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance made by the assessing officer cannot be sustained. The addition made at Rs.67,84,807/- on account of disallowance of payments