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)

section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 forms part of compensation/consideration and not interest as contemplated u/s. 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore, interest of Rs.47,37,762/- will also not be chargeable to tax under the head income from other sources. Page 4 of 19 Babubhai K. Sakaria 5. However, the assessing officer rejected

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 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

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

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 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

AHLSTROM FIBER COMPOSITES (I) P. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

TDS in terms of section 195 of the Act also and since no tax had been deducted at source, he held the expenses liable to be disallowed in terms of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee objected to the disallowance before the DRP who upheld the disallowance proposed by the AO, applying section

AHLSTROM FIBERCOMPOSITES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

TDS in terms of section 195 of the Act also and since no tax had been deducted at source, he held the expenses liable to be disallowed in terms of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee objected to the disallowance before the DRP who upheld the disallowance proposed by the AO, applying section

AHLSTROM FIBER COMPOSITES (I) P. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

TDS in terms of section 195 of the Act also and since no tax had been deducted at source, he held the expenses liable to be disallowed in terms of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee objected to the disallowance before the DRP who upheld the disallowance proposed by the AO, applying section

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

TDS was not deducted under section 40(a) (ia) of the Act, amounting to Rs.2,57,795/-, was made in the order

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

TDS was not deducted under section 40(a) (ia) of the Act, amounting to Rs.2,57,795/-, was made in the order

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

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

57,260/-, for the year under consideration. The assessee`s case was selected for complete scrutiny, as in the case of assessee, a survey u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on the business premises of the assessee. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) was finalized on 15/04/2021 accepting

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

57,260/-, for the year under consideration. The assessee`s case was selected for complete scrutiny, as in the case of assessee, a survey u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on the business premises of the assessee. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) was finalized on 15/04/2021 accepting

SHRI JAYANTILAL PAGHADAL,AT CHARAN SAMDHIYALA, NEW AREA PLOT, TALUKA JETPUR, DISTRICT RAJKOT-365480 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2) (3), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member)

57(iv) as held by the Department. The assessee in this case has mainly relied on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai Vs ITO, TDS-1, Surat 388 ITR 343 which, relying upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of CIT Vs Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 182 taxman 368/315

AHLSTROM FIBERCOMPOSITES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 437/Rjt/2018 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 Ahlstrom Munksjo Vs. D.C.I.T, Fibercomposites(India) Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham Circle, Mundra Sez Integrated Textile & Gandhidham. Apparel Park (Mitap), Plot No.07, Survey No.141, Mundra, Kutch-370421. Pan: Aagca9137M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, C.I.T Dr सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2023 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

57 of the Act are to be allowed, which in the present case would result in NIL income to Ahlstrom Corporation, Finland, since it is a case of pure reimbursement with no mark-up. (iv) Even otherwise, in terms of section 195 of the Act, since reimbursement of expenses is without any mark-up, the provisions of section 195 cannot

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

57,260/-, for the year under\nconsideration. The assessee`s case was selected for complete scrutiny, as in the\ncase of assessee, a survey u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on the business\npremises of the assessee. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,\n1961 ('the Act' for short) was finalized on 15/04/2021 accepting

M/S EAGLE MOTORS P. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. CIT-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt.Suchitra Kambleassessment Year :2012-13 M/S.Eagle Motors P.Ltd. Vs. Pr.Cit, Rajkot-1 Eagle House Rajkot. Nr. Moti Tanki Chowk Rajkot.

57,684/- to various NBFCs without examining and verifying that TDS was deducted on 3 the same, we see no reason to interfere of the order of the ld.Pr.CIT passed under section

HOLLIS VITRIFIED PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI, GUJARAT, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT, INDIA

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

TDS amount Rs.3,57,008/- and repayment of unsecured loan of Rs.3,33,744/- net closing balance of unsecured loan accepted during the F.Y.2017-18 of Rs.8,36,60,540/-. The contention of the assessee is accepted and unsecured loan for the year under consideration is taken amounting to Rs.8,36,60,540/-, Therefore, such cash credit is remained unexplained