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

TDS provisions, the assessee can be declared to be an assessee in default u/s. 201 of the Act and no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance made by the assessing officer cannot be sustained. The addition made at Rs.67,84,807/- on account of disallowance of payments

M/S. D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS provisions, the assessee can be declared to be an assessee in default u/s. 201 of the Act and no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance made by the assessing officer cannot be sustained. The addition made at Rs.67,84,807/- on account of disallowance of payments

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

TDS provisions, the assessee can be declared to be an assessee in default u/s. 201 of the Act and no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance made by the assessing officer cannot be sustained. The addition made at Rs.67,84,807/- on account of disallowance of payments

AHLSTROM FIBERCOMPOSITES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 437/Rjt/2018 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 Ahlstrom Munksjo Vs. D.C.I.T, Fibercomposites(India) Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham Circle, Mundra Sez Integrated Textile & Gandhidham. Apparel Park (Mitap), Plot No.07, Survey No.141, Mundra, Kutch-370421. Pan: Aagca9137M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, C.I.T Dr सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2023 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

90,225/- and Business Area Service Fees of Rs. 69,88,754/- to its AE namely Alhstrom Corporation, Finland. The assessee also paid Business Area Service Fees of Rs. 3,17,80,966/- to another AE namely Alhstrom Non-Woven LLC, USA. The AO also found that the same issue was there in A.Y. 2011-12 to 2013-14 wherein

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

TDS. 14. At the outset the learned AR for the assessee submitted that he has been instructed not to press the impugned issue. Therefore we dismiss the same as not pressed. The 5th issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of the AO by treating the profit on sale

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

TDS. 14. At the outset the learned AR for the assessee submitted that he has been instructed not to press the impugned issue. Therefore we dismiss the same as not pressed. The 5th issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of the AO by treating the profit on sale

BAN LABS PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.202/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ban Labs Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Ban House, Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Income Tax-1, Nagar, Gondal Road (South), Rajkot Rajkot-360004 (Gujarat) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacb8999C (Appellant) (Respondent)

90,74,553/- i.e. the average investment). The ld. PCIT also noticed that assessee has not maintained separate accounts to earn exempt and non-exempt income. In the absence of separate accounts by way of which the management and administrative expenditure could be segregated, there is no dispute and there cannot be any doubt that some expenditure is incurred

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.

90,84,157 27,91,555 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

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)

TDS was deducted. Accordingly, we are of the view that there was no verification carried out by the AO during the assessment proceedings with respect to the amount of gross receipt shown by the assessee viz a viz the gross receipt reported in the form 26AS. It is the settled law that the order of the AO can be held

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)

1-3-2022, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply In view of the above, since the delay of 298 days in filing appeal is falling within the Covid pandemic period, the delay is hereby being condoned. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the survey under section 133A of the Act was carried

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)

1-3-2022, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply In view of the above, since the delay of 298 days in filing appeal is falling within the Covid pandemic period, the delay is hereby being condoned. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the survey under section 133A of the Act was carried

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

TDS, Range-1, Rajkot. He pointed out that all these declarations had been accepted by the Department and in view of the same, the assessee was entitled to exemption from the provision of TCS on the scrap sold to the buyers. He pointed out that while total sale of scarp amounted to Rs.2.19 crores,declarations had been collected

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 149C IVRCL Ltd. of Rs 2091670 where for TDS is made at 1% of Rs 20918. Thus it is evidence and admitted by the Ld. AO that this transition relates to contract receipt. 2. Moreever, as per para 6.5 pages no. 10 of the appeal order the Ld. CIT (A) it is mention that lastly an amount

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act on account of cessation of liability.” Respectfully, following the same we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A). Hence, ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. ITA Nos.760 & 761/Rjt/2010 And CO No.32 & 33/Rjt/2010 M/s. Pavan Cosnt. Co. A.Ys. 2005-06 & 2006-07 44. The last issue

M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ACIT, CIR.-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 166/Rjt/2019 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Classic Network Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner 202, Arpan Complex, Kalawad Vs Of Income-Tax, Road, Opp. Swami Narayan Circle-2(1), Temple, Rajkot-360001 Rajkot Pan : Aabcc 8197 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Ms. Madhumita Roy:-

1)(va) of the Act on the late payment of PF. Subsequently, a revision order dated 22.03.2018 was passed by the learned PCIT invoking provisions of Section 263 of the Act directing the Assessing Officer to verify the nature of payment made by the assessee- company to M/s. Parsoli Motors Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.2,90,000/-, as on the payment

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

VINAY INFRATECH PVT LTD,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 101/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 M/S Vinay Infratech Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of 110-112, Silver Chamber, Vs. Income Tax, Tagore Road, Rajkot-1, Rajkot. Rajkot.

90,295/- hand (e) Details of cash deposits made during de-monetization period is following table along with certificate of bank for the same. Sr.No. Name of Bank and Date of Amount Description Remarks Account number deposit deposited of notes deposited A B C D E F A.Y. 2017-18 12 1 Oriental Bank

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

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

sections 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) 0f the Act, that the said provisions are intended to enforce due compliance of the requirement of other provisions of the Act and to ensure proper collection of tax as also transparency in dealings of the parties. The necessity of disallowance comes into operation only when default of the nature specified

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. SENOR METALS PVT. LTD., JAMNAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 260/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-12

90 383 1 28 207 Work in process 7 39 48 992 5 86 46 481 Finished goods 4 23 41 743 1 11 79 254 Total 11 64 81 118 6 99 53 942 Sub Total 4 65 27 177 - 44 75 265 100 70 32 Cost of Goods Sold 949 73 91 63 478 Gross Profit