SHRI CHAMUNDA CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,TDS-2,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.32/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Income Tax Officer, Shri Chamunda Credit Cooperative Tds-2, Vs. Society Limited, Rajkot. Famous Shopping Centre, 150 Feet Ring Road, Near Parijat Party Plot, Chandra Park Main Road, Rajkot-360005. Pan: Aabas9343J

61 taxmann.com 45 (Del) wherein the question raised before the court and the decision rendered thereon is reproduced herein below for the sake of clarity:- “Question: Whether the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) (inserted by the Finance Act, 2012), which states that TDS

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.

61 taxmann.com 45 (Del) wherein the question raised before the court and the decision rendered thereon is reproduced herein below for the sake of clarity:- “Question: Whether the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) (inserted by the Finance Act, 2012), which states that TDS

AMARDEEP EXPORTS,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD 1(3), JNR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

61,600/- 2. TDS return – other interest (section 164A) Rs. 1,64,527/- 3. Cash transaction of Rs. 100000 and more

RAJESHBHAI CHIMANBHAI JAVIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.312/Rjt/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009

61 taxmann.com 45 (Del) wherein the question raised before the court and the decision rendered thereon is reproduced herein below for the sake of clarity:- “Question: Whether the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) (inserted by the Finance Act, 2012), which states that TDS

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

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

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

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

THE ITO, WARD-2(2),, JAMNAGAR vs. SMT. SHITALBEN SAURABH VORA,, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.262-263/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S.Surendranagar District D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Milk Producers Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Union Ltd. Surendranagar. Wadhwan City, Surendranagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 17/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 12/01/2018, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 26/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 20012-13 & 2013-14. Ita Nos.262-263/Rjt/2018 A.Y.S 2012-13 To 2013-14 First, We Take Up Ita No. 262/Rjt/2018 For A.Y. 2013-14

61,498/- u/s 80P(2)(b) of I.T. Act, 1961 by stating that the nature of activity of the appellant is of an intermediary society and not of a primary co-operative society, hence not eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(b) of LT. Act, 1961. 2. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of contribution

M/S. SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT CO-OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. ,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE DCIT, SURENDRANAGR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.262-263/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S.Surendranagar District D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Milk Producers Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Union Ltd. Surendranagar. Wadhwan City, Surendranagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 17/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 12/01/2018, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 26/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 20012-13 & 2013-14. Ita Nos.262-263/Rjt/2018 A.Y.S 2012-13 To 2013-14 First, We Take Up Ita No. 262/Rjt/2018 For A.Y. 2013-14

61,498/- u/s 80P(2)(b) of I.T. Act, 1961 by stating that the nature of activity of the appellant is of an intermediary society and not of a primary co-operative society, hence not eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(b) of LT. Act, 1961. 2. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of contribution

THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S KRISHNA DEVELOPERS,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and the ground raised by the assessee in the CO is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.620/Rjt/2014 With C.O.No.4/Rjt/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 A.C.I.T., M/S.Krishna Developers, Circle-1, Business Centre, Vs. Junagadh. 1St Floor, Bus Station Road, Lal Bahadur Society, Junagadh.

TDS details were submitted. 3) The provisions of section 145(3) of the Act are applicable where the AO is not satisfied with the correctness or completeness of the accounts, and the assessee has not been following the method specified in sub-section (1) of accounting standard as notified under sub-section (2) regularly. In relation to non maintenance

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/03/2025 : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

TDS was made from alleged payment of commission in view of section 194H of the Income tax Act 1961. Therefore the claim of payment of commission amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. In respect of this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was also initiated for concealment of income

PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

TDS was made from alleged payment of commission in view of section 194H of the Income tax Act 1961. Therefore the claim of payment of commission amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. In respect of this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was also initiated for concealment of income

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

TDS was made from alleged payment of\ncommission in view of section 194H of the Income tax Act 1961. Therefore the\nclaim of payment of commission amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- was disallowed\nand added to the total income of the assessee. In respect of this addition, penalty\nu/s 271(1)(c) was also initiated for concealment of income

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

TDS was made from alleged payment of commission in view of section 194H of the Income tax Act 1961. Therefore the claim of payment of commission amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. In respect of this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was also initiated for concealment of income

M/S. MAKSON CERAMIC PVT. LTD.,AT. DHUVAV, TAL. WAKANER vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, MORBI

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

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

TDS in respect of LPG interest. Therefore, the same is disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added the same at the income of the assessee. Thus, the Assessing Officer determined the loss of Rs. 33,48,620/-. 3. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). During

THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. MANISHABEN N. MASHRU,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsr.No.

61 ,469 0.68% Total 23,93,86,067 10,99,87,129 40,98,852 1.05% 13. At this stage, we would like to make a reference to section 68 of the Income Tax Act, which contemplates that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers

THE ITO, WARD 1(3), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S PAVAN CONSTRUCTION CO, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS are not attracted on the reimbursement of the expenses. In view of above, we hold that the payment to M/s. Rajchamunda Construction Co. is outside the purview of provision of Section 194C of the Act. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A). Hence, the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed