ASHOKKUMAR PROJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,PORBANDAR vs. THE PR. CIT, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appear of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.83/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Ashokkumar Projects India P. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, 4Th Floor, Manek Centre, P.N. Cholera Arcade, M.G. Road Opposite, Bhaveshwar Mahadev Marg, Jamnagar - 361008 Temple, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamca5891Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 192 of Income Tax Act, 1961. It is pertinent to note here that TDS u/s 192 to be deducted as per slab rate applicable to individual. As per slab rate there is no tax payable up to basic exemption limit i.e. 2,50

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 therefore would not arise. 24. The Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income- tax vs. Ferromatic Milacron India (P.) Ltd. [2018] 99 taxmann.com 154 (Gujarat) dated 09.10.2018, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has decided the appeal in favour

ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GUJARAT vs. DCIT-ACIT CENT-2 RKT, RAJKOT

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

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

TDS therefore would not arise. 24. The Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income- tax vs. Ferromatic Milacron India (P.) Ltd. [2018] 99 taxmann.com 154 (Gujarat) dated 09.10.2018, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has decided the appeal in favour

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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 therefore would not arise. 24. The Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income- tax vs. Ferromatic Milacron India (P.) Ltd. [2018] 99 taxmann.com 154 (Gujarat) dated 09.10.2018, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has decided the appeal in favour

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 therefore would not arise. 24. The Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income- tax vs. Ferromatic Milacron India (P.) Ltd. [2018] 99 taxmann.com 154 (Gujarat) dated 09.10.2018, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has decided the appeal in favour

DHIMANT RASIKLAL SHAH,JAMNAGAR vs. PR. CIT-1, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.354/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) Shri Dhimant Rashiklal Shah Vs. The Pr.Cit-1, Home Maker, Opp. Sahvam Patrol Aayakar Bhavan, Taranjali Building, Pump, Saru Section Road, Jamnagar-361008 Jamnagar-361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afups2094H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Smt. Pallavi, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 04/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

Section Road, Jamnagar-361008 Jamnagar-361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AFUPS2094H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. AR Respondent by : Smt. Pallavi, Ld. CIT(DR) : 04/08/2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 03/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed

M/S. FRIENDS SALT WORKS & ALIED INDUSTRIES,,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE , RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A Nos. 49 & 50 /Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page No 2 Friends Salt Works & Allied Industry vs. DCIT (TDS

M/S. FRIENDS SALT WORKS & ALIED INDUSTRIES,,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE , RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A Nos. 49 & 50 /Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page No 2 Friends Salt Works & Allied Industry vs. DCIT (TDS

SHREE SAMARTH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

section 194C of Income-tax Act. GojijyaBhikhubhai and Others ITA No.609, 610 and 612/RJT/2024 (AY :2018-19) 9 There were no documentary evidences available on records from which it can be ascertained whether you have deducted any TDS on the said payments. As you have failed to deduct / deposit TDS on expenditure

SHREE SAMARTH SWITCHGEAR AND TRANSMISSION PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

section 194C of Income-tax Act. GojijyaBhikhubhai and Others ITA No.609, 610 and 612/RJT/2024 (AY :2018-19) 9 There were no documentary evidences available on records from which it can be ascertained whether you have deducted any TDS on the said payments. As you have failed to deduct / deposit TDS on expenditure

GOJIYA BHIKHUBHAI,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

section 194C of Income-tax Act.\nThere were no documentary evidences available on records from which it can be ascertained\nwhether you have deducted any TDS on the said payments. As you have failed to deduct /\ndeposit TDS on expenditure of Rs 13,00,93,467/- and Rs 4,25,67,395/-, an amount

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

50 lakh thereshold required by Section 149(1)(b), the jurisdiction assumed by the AO ab initio was fundamentally flawed. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment encompassing Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, any notice issued invoking the time limit under Section 149(1)(b) must be dropped if the escaped income is less than Rupees fifty lakhs. 2. Invalid

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

50,91,169/-, on account of interest expenses, on account of interest to\ndepositors, on unsecured loan of Rs.25,37,43,447/-, taken from family\nmembers and others and also taken loan from ICICI bank for which interest of\nRs. 16,96,410/-has been paid. Moreover, on perusal of the documents available\non record, it has been found that

PRANAM ENTERPRISE,JUNAGADH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.391/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pranam Enterprise Vs. The Dcit Office No.3, City Centre, Opp. Circle-1(1), Rajkot New Collector Office, Junagadh – 362001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffp7926H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Respondent By Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am:

Section (6)", where underreported income is in consequence of misreporting thereof by any person, the penalty shall be equal to 200% of the amount of tax payable on such under reported income. In the instant facts, certain facts are noteworthy. The first fact is that the purchaser, at the time of sale of property, property taxes had been effectively deducted

SHREE KARMAL KOTADA JUTH SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.328/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Karmal Kotadajuth Seva Vs. The Ito Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot. Sahakarimandali Limited. Karmal Kotada, Rajkot.

50,000 to Rs.1,00,000/-. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee argued that threshold limit for gross receipts for audit under section 44AB of the Act, was only Rs.40,00,000/- as against one crore considered by the assessing officer. Besides, the assessing officer can levy maximum penalty under section 271B of the Act to the tune of Rs.1

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. DRB COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS have been made while making such payment to the foreign agents and finally the said Export Sales Brokerage (Commission) of Rs. 1,47,94,267/- wad disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee by the Ld. AO which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. D.M.L. WORLD TRADE PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS have been made while making such payment to the foreign agents and finally the said Export Sales Brokerage (Commission) of Rs. 1,47,94,267/- wad disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee by the Ld. AO which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence

THE DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT MEENABEN H LAKHANI, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS have been made while making such payment to the foreign agents and finally the said Export Sales Brokerage (Commission) of Rs. 1,47,94,267/- wad disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee by the Ld. AO which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (2), RAJKOT vs. SHRI NARENDRA NANJIBHAI DAVDA, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS have been made while making such payment to the foreign agents and finally the said Export Sales Brokerage (Commission) of Rs. 1,47,94,267/- wad disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee by the Ld. AO which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence