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.

80[under section 12AA or section 12AB] or under clause (vi) of sub-section (5) of section 80G or under section 263 or under section 270A or under section 271 or under section 272A or an order passed by him under section 154 amending his order under section 263 or an order passed by a Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief

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.

section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the returned income of Rs. 1,64,75,250/- without any modifications. Later on, the assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, was issued to the assessee, on 07-08- 2013, which was duly served upon

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

section 9(1)(i) Whether since non-resident agents had rendered their services outside India and all agents had overseas offices and they were not having any permanent establishment in India, commission paid to them was not liable to tax in India Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee)." 25. In view of the above factual position

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

section 9(1)(i) Whether since non-resident agents had rendered their services outside India and all agents had overseas offices and they were not having any permanent establishment in India, commission paid to them was not liable to tax in India Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee)." 25. In view of the above factual position

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

section 9(1)(i) Whether since non-resident agents had rendered their services outside India and all agents had overseas offices and they were not having any permanent establishment in India, commission paid to them was not liable to tax in India Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee)." 25. In view of the above factual position

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

section 9(1)(i) Whether since non-resident agents had rendered their services outside India and all agents had overseas offices and they were not having any permanent establishment in India, commission paid to them was not liable to tax in India Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee)." 25. In view of the above factual position

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 9 also the decisions of Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad Bench on similar facts and lower tax deduction certificate issued by the TDS wing of Income tax department in deductee sister concern and also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Coco Cola Sewerages Pvt. Ltd., 293 ITR 226 even if there

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 9 also the decisions of Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad Bench on similar facts and lower tax deduction certificate issued by the TDS wing of Income tax department in deductee sister concern and also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Coco Cola Sewerages Pvt. Ltd., 293 ITR 226 even if there

PRAMUKH ARANYA DEVELOPERS,JUNAGADH vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

TDS as per section 1941A. Party-wise+ Amount-wise Sales break up for the\nyear is also attached herewith for your perusal. (As per Q-010 Documents filed)\n11) Not Applicable. The sales transaction of Rs. 2,64,60,13,950/- does not belong to\nus. Please furnish more details if any.\n12) Please find herewith:\n•Detail of total

THE DCIT, CIRCLE TDS,, RAJKOT vs. M\S. APRICOT FOODS PVT. LTD. , METODA, DIST. RAJKOT

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

TDS) v. United Breweries Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 123 (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana) has held that "there being no relationship of a principal and agent between assessee and retailers, trade incentives paid by assessee to retailers through del-credere agents in order to boost its sale could not be treated as commission for purpose of section

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT vs. SUNSHINE TILES COMPANY PVT. LTD., MORBI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 649 /Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2011-12) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Sunshine Tiles Company Pvt. Tax, Cir-1(1), Rajkot Ltd. Vs. Room No. 502, Aayakar Bhavan, S. No. 150 160/P1, B/H Sunhil Race Course Ring Road, Ceramics 8-A, National Highway, Rajkot – 360001 Rajkot – 360001 [Pan No.: Aancs3264L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), vide order dated 23.08.2016. ITA No. 649/Rjt/2024 AY. 2011-12 SUNSHINE TILES COMPANY P. LTD. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law on facts in deleting the addition

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)

80 Taxmann.Com 272 (Bom), held that amendment to section 68 is prospective and applicable only from assessment year 2013-14. Therefore, as per mandatory provisions of section 68 of the Act, the assessee needs to explain the source of the source, however, we note that assessee has failed to file the Page 21 of 37 I.T.A No. 363/Rjt/2024

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

section 271(1) (C), of the Act, to the tune of\nRs.35,55,728/-\n14. Issue No.2- Deemed rent of more than one properties reflected in the\nBalance Sheet, Rs.1,80,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, on\nverification of the audited accounts filed by the assessee, along with return of\nincome, it was noticed by the assessing officer

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

section 271(1) (C), of the Act, to the tune of\nRs.35,55,728/-.\n14. Issue No.2- Deemed rent of more than one properties reflected in the\nBalance Sheet, Rs.1,80,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, on\nverification of the audited accounts filed by the assessee, along with return of\nincome, it was noticed by the assessing officer

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

section 271(1) (C), of the Act, to the tune of\nRs.35,55,728/-\n14.\nIssue No.2- Deemed rent of more than one properties reflected in the\nBalance Sheet, Rs.1,80,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, on\nverification of the audited accounts filed by the assessee, along with return of\nincome, it was noticed by the assessing officer

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

section 271(1) (C), of the Act, to the tune of\nRs.35,55,728/-\n14. Issue No.2- Deemed rent of more than one properties reflected in the\nBalance Sheet, Rs.1,80,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, on\nverification of the audited accounts filed by the assessee, along with return of\nincome, it was noticed by the assessing officer

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

section 271(1) (C), of the Act, to the tune of\nRs.35,55,728/-\n14. Issue No.2- Deemed rent of more than one properties reflected in the\nBalance Sheet, Rs.1,80,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, on\nverification of the audited accounts filed by the assessee, along with return of\nincome, it was noticed by the assessing officer

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

section 271(1) (C), of the Act, to the tune of\nRs.35,55,728/-\n\n14. Issue No.2- Deemed rent of more than one properties reflected in the\nBalance Sheet, Rs.1,80,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, on\nverification of the audited accounts filed by the assessee, along with return of\nincome, it was noticed by the assessing