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

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

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

54,700/- only. 8. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT(A). 9. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2016-17, he furnished return after demonetization period showing substantial cash in hand as on 31-03-2016. Therefore, the return of income was selected for limited scrutiny

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)

54 Taxman 496 whereby it was held that arrears of interest computed on delayed or enhanced compensation shall be taxable on accrual basis. Therefore, when one reads the words "interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation" in section 145A of the I.T. Act, the same have to be construed in the manner interpreted by the Supreme Court in Ghanshyam

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

TDS details as per form 26AS with the income declared by you. In this regard, I am enclosing herewith the form No.26AS with the income declared by me at Annexure-H. Please furnish copies of the last assessment order in your case and if any addition/disallowances were made therein or any earlier order what is the present appellate result

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

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

TDS (as can be seen from the submission of the assesse reproduced in the appellate order). 8. It is, therefore, prayed that that order of the Ld. CIT (A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3. The assessee company is engaged in the business of dealership of Ford Brand Passenger Cars and running authorised

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)

TDS was made in respect of these expenses or on merit they do not warrant disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). Accordingly an addition of Rs 13,32,500/- is sustained and balance addition of Rs 1,82,60,293/- is deleted. Assessee succeeds partly on this ground.” I.T.A Nos. 06 & 37/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 6 M/s. Shivabyay Project

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS was made in respect of these expenses or on merit they do not warrant disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). Accordingly an addition of Rs 13,32,500/- is sustained and balance addition of Rs 1,82,60,293/- is deleted. Assessee succeeds partly on this ground.” I.T.A Nos. 06 & 37/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 6 M/s. Shivabyay Project

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)

54,67,402/-. 30. The summarized and concise ground No.3 of the revenue, is reproduced below for ready reference: “(iii). Ground No.3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of Rs.3,16,82,477/- , though the assessee had made interest

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)

54,67,402/-. 30. The summarized and concise ground No.3 of the revenue, is reproduced below for ready reference: “(iii). Ground No.3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of Rs.3,16,82,477/- , though the assessee had made interest

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)

54,67,402/-. 30. The summarized and concise ground No.3 of the revenue, is reproduced below for ready reference: “(iii). Ground No.3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of Rs.3,16,82,477/- , though the assessee had made interest

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)

54,67,402/-. 30. The summarized and concise ground No.3 of the revenue, is reproduced below for ready reference: “(iii). Ground No.3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of Rs.3,16,82,477/- , though the assessee had made interest

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)

54,67,402/-. 30. The summarized and concise ground No.3 of the revenue, is reproduced below for ready reference: “(iii). Ground No.3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of Rs.3,16,82,477/- , though the assessee had made interest

THE DCIT, CIRCLE (TDS), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. M/S. GOPAL SNACKS P. LTD., RAJKOT, VILLAGE METODA, TAL. LODHIKA, DIST. RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

TDS. Further the corrugated boxes are printed materials or as per specification of the assessee, which are supplied after the test report/certificate by the assessee. The above products could not be sold to anybody else, then the assessee because of pre-printed in nature. Therefore why provisions of section 201 be invoked for non-deduction of tax at source

ACTIONWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.317/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Actionware India Pvt. Ltd. The Pr.Cit-1 बनाम 316, Sagar Arcade Rajkot. Gandal Road Vs. Opp: Union Bank Of India Rajkot 360 002 (Gujarat) Pan : Aacck 3445 Q (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

54,02,781/- taken by you from Dishman Carbogen Amcis Ltd as unexplained cash credits within the meaning of section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 as the genuineness of the transaction is not proved. 3.In this case the assessment order has been passed without making due inquiry/verification.Hence, in terms of Explanation 2 to sec. 263, such order

THE ITO, WARD-1(4),, DWARKA vs. SHRI JUVANSINH JORUBHA JADEJA,, DWARKA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

54,340/- that of Sundry Creditors is not sustainable. In respect of addition on account of job works under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the same was also rightly deleted. Thus, the Assessing Officer relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 6. As relates to ground no.1, the Ld. DR submitted that despite giving proper opportunities

SMT. CHANDRIKABEN THAKARSHIBHAI LANGHNOJA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD- 2 (2) (3), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

TDS) of Rs. 30,629/-. The assesse filed her Return of Income on 30.05.2013 however by typographical mistake declaring the income as Rs. 54,97,370 as against her total income of Rs. 4,97,370/-. The said return was processed u/s. 143(1) on 04.10.2013 by Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru and demanded