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.

1) can be discharged other than by way of deducting tax only by taking recourse to sub- section (2) or sub-section (3) of that section Held, yes" 8. Therefore, assessing officer observed that in the assessee`s case, since the assessee has not deducted tax at source, nor he has taken any approval from the assessing officer, therefore

HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

9. The case of CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. [1962] 46 ITR 649 (SC) related to claim of bad debts under the Act of 1922. In that case also, the case of the assessee-company was changed from one section (section 10(2)(xi) corresponding to section 36(l)(vii) and section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,, PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

9. The case of CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. [1962] 46 ITR 649 (SC) related to claim of bad debts under the Act of 1922. In that case also, the case of the assessee-company was changed from one section (section 10(2)(xi) corresponding to section 36(l)(vii) and section

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

section 56(2) (viii) r.w.s. 145B(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are under: In respect of receipt of Rs. 1,89,51,049/- towards interest u/s 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on Enhanced Compensation on compulsory acquisition of rural agricultural land by government, I would like to clarify that the land so acquired by government was originally owned

RAKESH BASANTILAL LADDHA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

TDS statement is subject to rectification under section 154 and appealable under section 246A, since demand issued by the AO is deemed to be a notice of payment under section 156. The ld.CIT(A) has dismissed appeals of the assessees on the basis of surmises without examining legality of the issue. He further submitted that subsequently, the ld.CIT

PARAG MAKANBHAI PARSANA,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

TDS statement is subject to rectification under section 154 and appealable under section 246A, since demand issued by the AO is deemed to be a notice of payment under section 156. The ld.CIT(A) has dismissed appeals of the assessees on the basis of surmises without examining legality of the issue. He further submitted that subsequently, the ld.CIT

JAYESHBHAI KANJIBHAI DANGARIYA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

TDS statement is subject to rectification under section 154 and appealable under section 246A, since demand issued by the AO is deemed to be a notice of payment under section 156. The ld.CIT(A) has dismissed appeals of the assessees on the basis of surmises without examining legality of the issue. He further submitted that subsequently, the ld.CIT

VISHAL ENTERPRISE, ,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

TDS statement is subject to rectification under section 154 and appealable under section 246A, since demand issued by the AO is deemed to be a notice of payment under section 156. The ld.CIT(A) has dismissed appeals of the assessees on the basis of surmises without examining legality of the issue. He further submitted that subsequently, the ld.CIT

INTERMARK SHIPPING AGENCIES P. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-4,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 640/Rjt/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Intermark Shipping Ito Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tds-4, Gandhidham, Ii Floor, Ajanta Comm. Plot No. 32, Sector-3, Center No. 1, Plot No. Gandhidham, Kachchh 277/278, Ward 12-B Gandhidham (Kutch) Pan No. Aaa Ci5 689 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Arvind Sontakka, Dr Assessee By : Shri M. J. Ranpura, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020

TDS is applicable on Intermark Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO AY 2010-11 such reimbursement amount as the case made out by the assessee before the Revenue. However, such plea of the assessee was not found tenable. The Ld. AO was of the view that the certificate issued by the IT authority in favour of Mundra Port and Special

KANTABEN VAJUBHAI PAGHADAL,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.552/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Kantaben Vajubhai Paghadal Vs. It-Office, New Aayakar At- Charan Samadhiyala, Bhawan, Jetpur – 360370(Gujarat) Rajkot - 360370 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxmpp2962D (Appellant) (Respondent)

9. Thus, the Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) has held that the interest under section 28 of the Act of 1894 unlike interest under section 34 is an accretion to the value and hence, it is a part of the enhanced compensation or consideration which is not the case with interest under section

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

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)

TDS amounting to Rs. 18,96,225/-, which substantiates that the corresponding income is solely attributable to him. Furthermore, as observed from the AO's order, the assessee had initially distributed the interest income on compensation among other individuals and subsequently received the same back as a gift. In view of these facts, the AO has rightly added the entire

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) of the Act. Since the Commission was not chargeable to tax in India, hence there was no requirement to deduct TDS

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) of the Act. Since the Commission was not chargeable to tax in India, hence there was no requirement to deduct 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

section 9(1) of the Act. Since the Commission was not chargeable to tax in India, hence there was no requirement to deduct 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

section 9(1) of the Act. Since the Commission was not chargeable to tax in India, hence there was no requirement to deduct TDS

VIPULKUMAR HEMANTLAL POPAT, UPLETA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 72/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010 Vipul H. Popat, I.T.O., Prop. Mathav Agro Industri, Vs. Tds-1, Nilkanthkhandskampound, Rajkot. Dhoraji Road, Upleta, Rajkot. C/O D.R Adhia “Om Shri Padamlaya”, Nr. Trikamrayji Haweli, 16-Jagnath Plot, Dr.Yagnik Road, Opp. Imperial Hotel, Rajkot-360001

9. The learned AR before us filed a written submission wherein it was contended that the AO in the own case of the assessee has made the disallowance on account of non-deduction of TDS under the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, there cannot be raised any further demand on account of non-deduction

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

1) of section 139. This section 40(a)(ia) of the Act refers only to the duty to deduct tax and pay to government account. If there is any shortfall due to any difference of opinion as to the taxability of any item or the nature of payment falling under various TDS provisions, the assessee can be declared

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

1) of section 139. This section 40(a)(ia) of the Act refers only to the duty to deduct tax and pay to government account. If there is any shortfall due to any difference of opinion as to the taxability of any item or the nature of payment falling under various TDS provisions, the assessee can be declared