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

6. The SAFCO is an international company having permanent address of 22, 34Gil Nonhyun-Ro, Gangnam-Gu, Seoul, Korea, Tel: 82-2-572-5494, Fax: 82- 2-572-5495 and not having any direct business connection with India. Accordingly, section 195 is not applicable for deducting TDS

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.

TDS) 144BA or an order passed under section 154 or section 155 in respect of such order; (f) an order passed by the prescribed authority under sub-clause (iv) or sub- clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10. 6

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.

TDS) 144BA or an order passed under section 154 or section 155 in respect of such order; (f) an order passed by the prescribed authority under sub-clause (iv) or sub- clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10. 6

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.

TDS under section 195 of the Act or under section 40(a) (ia) of the Act. Hence, we sustain the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised by the Revenue. 23. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21/08/2025. (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT

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 201,assessee- company should not be penalized for non-deposit for non-deposit of TDS, since all due taxes have been paid. (B) Proposed addition of Rs. 6

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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)\n(8) GSSS Hari KE Kalan ICT Society Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS (ITAT AMRITSAR)\n(9) DABRA Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS (ITAT AMRITSAR)\n(10) GITA STAR HOTELS

GOPALLAL RAMPRASAD KABRA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, TDS-3, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is being restored to the file of ITO (TDS) with the above directions

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal. Total Tax Effect 28,72,848/-

TDS did not consider Form 27C, which was furnished before him during the course of TCS proceedings and before passing of order under section 206C(6

SHRI FALGUN N. SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS-2, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarasstt.Year : 2007-08 Shri Falgun N. Sheth Ito, Tds-2 Prop. Of Falgun Steel Traders Vs Rajkot. 10-Mavdi Plot Gondal Road Rajkot. Pan : Aexps 3307 M

6) of Rs.2,19,556/- and interest liability for late collection under section 206C(7) of the Act at Rs.1,58,080/-. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee contended that the scrap sold by the assessee, not being generated during any manufacturing activities of the assessee, did not qualify as scrap for the purpose of TCS under section 206C

AMITSINH NANABHA RANA,,WANKANER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, MORBI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2012-13 Amitsinh Nababha Rana Ito, Ward-1 At. Divijay Nagar Vs Morbi. Wankaner. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent)

section 37 of the Act. Secondly, the assessee has not deducted the TDS on such expenses amounting to 6 Rs.12

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

TDS officer for non-deduction of taxes at source towards purchase of property. However, it was submitted that as per Section 253 of the Act, there is no such sub-Section under which appeal could be filed before the Tribunal, and accordingly the present appeal is not maintainable in the first instance. 6

SUNDERLAL CHOTMAL JAIN,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, TDS WARD-3, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jamnagar. However The Assessing Officer Issued A Show Cause Notice Dated 18-08-2015, 01-06-2016 That The Assessee Has Not Collected Tcs To The Tune Of Rs. 4,28,432/- Sale Of Scraps For The For The Relevant Assessment Year 2012-13 & Assesse Has Not Filed Statement In Form 27Eq.

TDS) “……6. Section 206C of the Act pertains to profits and gains from the business of trading in liquor, forest

PUNABHAI G. PARDAVA,,DHARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(4),, AMRELI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act but he failed to do so. Therefore the AO, disallowed the same and added to the total income of the assessee on account of non-deduction of TDS. 5. The assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT-A who also confirmed by holding that the assessee failed to bring any cogent evidence

BHARAT NARSHIBHAI PATEL,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us.

TDS an amount paid to deductee and, in turn, deductee also hasn’t offered to tax income embedded in such amount The penalty for tax withholding lapse per se is separately provided under section 271C and, therefore, section 40(a)(i) isn’t attracted to the same. Hence, an assessee could not be penalized under section 40(a)(ia) when

M/S. EPP COMPOSITES PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, , RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Epp Composites Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Plot No.2646, Gidc Metoda, Of Income Tax, Rajkot – 1. Rajkot. [Pan – Aabce 2957 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Respondent By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R Per Suchitra Kamble: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.03.2018 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Rajkot For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

6. Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has not taken cognisance of the delayed payment of TDS to the Government Treasurer as well as action of the assessee’s explanation that the assessee was liable to pay TDS but late payment made by the assessee comes under the purview of Section

P P CORPORATION,RAJKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 133(6) of the Act to the lenders calling for the return of income\nand other details, which were submitted before the assessing officer. Therefore,\nassessing officer, having examined, these details and documents, took the\nplausible view about the genuineness of the Landers, and therefore order\npassed by the assessing officer after making due application of mind cannot

M/S PHOENIX PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Madhumita Roy)

section 142(1) of the Act, dated 5-9- 2013 read as under: 6. Furnish the TDS credit with reconciliation

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

In the result, ground number 8 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act 6. The brief facts in relation to this ground of appeal are that the assessee made payments to various Clearing and Forwarding agents for commission as well as towards reimbursement of expenditure. The assessee had deducted TDS

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

6% of Tea Tea 4,20,815 General invoice Trading value Total 2.21.28.335 128- ITA Nos. 284, 353, 225 & 226/RJT/2024 Aditya Birla Global Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. It was noticed by the assessing officer that assessee has not deducted TDS on this commission payment as per the provision of section