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

72,31,560/- on 19.10.2015, but failed to deduct tax at sources as required u/s 194lA of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, the ITO TDS-2, Rajkot required the applicants to show cause why they should not be treated as an assessee in default within the meaning of Section

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

72,967 kg Verma 4. Delmon Star UAE IRAN 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

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

72,967 kg Verma 4. Delmon Star UAE IRAN 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

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

72,967 kg Verma 4. Delmon Star UAE IRAN 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

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

72,967 kg Verma 4. Delmon Star UAE IRAN 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

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/-

72,848/- 3. The brief facts related to this case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of non-ferrous metal scrap. During the course of proceedings before ITO-TDS, he held that the assessee was liable to collect tax at source (TCS) to the tune of " 16,32,29,90/-, but has not collected

THE ACIT GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM vs. SOFTEL MACHINES LIMITED , GANDHIDHAM ( KUTCH)

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

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

section 43B, payments, BIFR letter, TDS payments etc. In fact, the assessee could not have filed these details without show-cause notice (dated 13/12/2018). So, accepting assessee's submission that it has filed everything before the assessing officer on 5/5/2018 is beyond imagination. As per the screen shot of e-Filing portal submitted by the assessee, the assessee has filed

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) 2. Since common issues are involved for both the years under consideration, both the appeals are being taken up together. We shall first take up the appeal

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) 2. Since common issues are involved for both the years under consideration, both the appeals are being taken up together. We shall first take up the appeal

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\n2.\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\n2.\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\n2.\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

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

TDS. The penalty confirmed is totally\nunjustified on facts was also in law and may kindly be deleted.\n5.\nThe relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are\nas follows. The assessee, before us, is an in individual and has originally filed\nreturn of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, on 30.09.2008, declaring total income

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\n\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76 to 80/RJT/2022, relates to penalty\nu/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and appeal

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\n2.\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

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)

72 wherein invoking the explanation held that the provision of Section 194C would not apply to a case, where the assessee did not supply any material to the manufacturer. The assessee also relied upon CBDT Circular No. 13/2006 dated 13.12.2006 which clarified that section 194C would apply only if it was a contract for work and not contract for sale

M/S. G. K. TRADRES ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, TDS-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

TDS) v. Siyaram Metal Udyog (P.) Ltd. [2016] 71 taxmann.com 204/240 Taxman 578 (Gujarat High Court), the AO made addition on the ground that the assessee had breached section 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in case of sale of scrap and that the assessee had not submitted Form 27C comprising of the buyer's declaration to the Commissioner

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 206C, the department has not accepted those decisions. Revenue has moved the Hon'ble Supreme court on this aspect and the SLP of the department has been admitted before the Supreme Court in CIT(TDS) Vs Siyaram Metal Udyog Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 78 Taxman.com 157(SC). It needs to mentioned here that the case of Adishankara spinning mills