ASHOKKUMAR PROJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,PORBANDAR vs. THE PR. CIT, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appear of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.83/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Ashokkumar Projects India P. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, 4Th Floor, Manek Centre, P.N. Cholera Arcade, M.G. Road Opposite, Bhaveshwar Mahadev Marg, Jamnagar - 361008 Temple, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamca5891Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 201,assessee- company should not be penalized for non-deposit for non-deposit of TDS, since all due taxes have been paid. (B) Proposed addition of Rs. 6,55,242/-, on account of labour expenses of Rs. 21,84,141/- Your honour has issued notice on account of expenses claimed for Rs. 9,29,67,709/- in profit & loss

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

TDS officer for non-deduction of taxes at source towards purchase of property. However, it was submitted that as per Section 253 of the Act, there is no such sub-Section under which appeal could be filed before the Tribunal, and accordingly the present appeal is not maintainable in the first instance. 6. We have been perused the rival contentions

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:

92 CA. The Appellant prays that the addition made by the Learned AO / TPO in relation to the international transaction of sales to AEs be deleted. 2. Disallowance of Management fees and Business Area Service fees under section 37(1) of the Act 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned

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 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S. SHIVABYAY PROJECT PVT. LTD. , GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “The grounds of appeal mentioned herein under are without prejudice to each other. 1.0 Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-l, Rajkot has erred in law in confirming the disallowance

M/S. SHIVABYAY PROJECT PVT. LTD. ,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “The grounds of appeal mentioned herein under are without prejudice to each other. 1.0 Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-l, Rajkot has erred in law in confirming the disallowance

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 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,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

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,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

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

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)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 11/02/2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 21/12/2018 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Babubhai K. Sakaria 2. Grounds of appeal raised

SHRI LAKHMAN ARJAN KARMUR,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NETILNAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTER, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, we uphold the order of ld

92,131/- during the year under consideration. The same was also reflected in form number 26AS along with TDS of " 1,27,507/-. However, the assessee did not file its return of income and subsequently assessment was completed under section

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,, JAMNAGAR vs. SHRI MILANKUMAR M. POBARU,, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The said interest expenses pertained to that paid to the creditor of the assessee M/s Hero Moto Corp. Ltd for delay in payments against various purchases. 25. The Ld.CIT(A) deleted the disallowance finding that interest paid to creditors is not in the nature of interest as envisaged in the definition of interest

SHRI GAJRAJ NATUBHA JETHVA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-3 (2), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 426/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Gajraj Natubha Jethva Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ito Ward – Sikka Patiya, Moti Khavadi, 3(2), Taranjali Building, Nr. Amber Jamnagar-361140 Cinema, Pt. Nehru Marg, Hospital Road Jamnagar - 361140 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akypj9388E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt. Astha Maniyar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 20.10.2023, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act, on 29.12.2018. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

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

92 taxmann.com 4 (Guj.)  Sunbarg Tradelink (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2016] 74 taxmann.com 16 (Guj.)  Mahadev Trading Co. v. ITO [2012] 18 taxmann.com 353 (Ahd.) b) The notices u/s 148A(b) and 148 of the Act and the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act are in violation of Section 151A of the Act. 1. The notice u/s 148A

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

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

92 taxmann.com 4 (Guj.)  Sunbarg Tradelink (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2016] 74 taxmann.com 16 (Guj.)  Mahadev Trading Co. v. ITO [2012] 18 taxmann.com 353 (Ahd.) b) The notices u/s 148A(b) and 148 of the Act and the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act are in violation of Section 151A of the Act. 1. The notice u/s 148A

ASHOK HIRPARA, DEPUTY COMMIOSSIONER OF INCOMETAX, JAMNAGAR vs. SANJAY GULABRAI KUNDALIA, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.66/Rjt/2025 & C.O. No. 10/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sanjay Gulabrai Kundalia बनाम Tax, Jamnagar Khambhaliya Circle-1, Vs. Highway, Sikkarpatiya, Jamnagar Sikka, Jamnagar Pan: Acypk3888Q Sanjay Gulabrai Kundalia Jamnagar Khambhaliya Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Highway, Sikkarpatiya, Circle-1, Jamnagar Sikka, Jamnagar Pan: Acypk3888Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant/Respondent) : (""यथ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri K.D. Sheth, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18/09/2025 Order Per: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17, Are Directed Against The Common Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 10.12.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Dcit Vs.Sanjay Gulabrai Kundalia

section 133(6) of the Act, the respective parties filed the confirmations before the assessing officer. The assessee also filed the bank statement before the assessing officer. The assessee also submitted before the assessing officer, that most of the transactions are through account payee cheques and also stated the in appropriate cases TDS DCIT VS.Sanjay Gulabrai Kundalia ITA No.66 /RJT/2025