SHIV EXTRUSION,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 646/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Extrusion Vs. Income Tax Officer Plot No.3978 Phase Iiiroad Income Tax Office, Ito Ward No.-R Dared, Jamnagar 2(10), Jamnagar, Income 361004, Gujarat, India, Jamnagar Tax Office, Shiv Smruti, Jamnagar, Jamnagar, Gujarat, 361008, Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abkfs7199F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ramesh M. Patel, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2026

7,94,224/-under Section 69A (unexplained money/investment), as the addition represents cash proceeds/profit from sales. The income, represented as cash proceeds from unaccounted sales, does not constitute an "Asset" as defined by the restrictive Explanation to Section 149(1)(b). The term "asset" includes immovable property, shares, securities, loans, advances, and deposits in a bank account, implying an exhaustive

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)

94,800 Deviram Jogi Labor 1,42,250 1,42,250 Jeinesh Rajpal 1,42,200 1,42,200 Keshu Parbat 1,17,329 98,700 Malde Samat 2,35,800 2,35,800 Meena MangelalGenaji 1,92,000 1,92,000 Menand Jivan Khant 1,21,861 48,730 RajujiHarbhamji Odedra 2,48,500 2,48,500 Raspallabour

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

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

TDS. 5. The assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT-A who also confirmed by holding that the assessee failed to bring any cogent evidence suggesting that the rent was paid to three co-owners instead of one as alleged by the AO. 6. The learned CIT-A also observed that the amendment brought under the statute under

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 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 forms part of compensation/consideration and not interest as contemplated u/s. 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore, interest of Rs.47,37,762/- will also not be chargeable to tax under the head income from other sources. Page 4 of 19 Babubhai K. Sakaria 5. However, the assessing officer rejected

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS have been made while making such payment to the foreign agents and finally the said Export Sales Brokerage (Commission) of Rs. 1,47,94,267/- wad disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee by the Ld. AO which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (2), RAJKOT vs. SHRI NARENDRA NANJIBHAI DAVDA, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS have been made while making such payment to the foreign agents and finally the said Export Sales Brokerage (Commission) of Rs. 1,47,94,267/- wad disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee by the Ld. AO which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. D.M.L. WORLD TRADE PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS have been made while making such payment to the foreign agents and finally the said Export Sales Brokerage (Commission) of Rs. 1,47,94,267/- wad disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee by the Ld. AO which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence

THE DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT MEENABEN H LAKHANI, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS have been made while making such payment to the foreign agents and finally the said Export Sales Brokerage (Commission) of Rs. 1,47,94,267/- wad disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee by the Ld. AO which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. DRB COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS have been made while making such payment to the foreign agents and finally the said Export Sales Brokerage (Commission) of Rs. 1,47,94,267/- wad disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee by the Ld. AO which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. DRB COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS have been made while making such payment to the foreign agents and finally the said Export Sales Brokerage (Commission) of Rs. 1,47,94,267/- wad disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee by the Ld. AO which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence

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

94 627 1 14 92 283 Repairs & maintenance 3 40 882 25 61 698 Other mfg. expenses 58 76 989 49 00 203 7 50 40 850 5 55 74 943 Credit of Wind farm on Units Generated 1 05 91 915 1 15 89 169 Depreciation Related

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

94,57,783/- as opposed to Rs.53,11,37,045/- shown by the assessee; resulting in proposed adjustment of Rs.15,893,20,738/ on account of determination of ALP of the international transactions of sales. The assessee objected to the aforesaid proposed adjustment before the DRP who dismissed all the objections of the assessee, and accordingly, the adjustment of Rs.15.83

AHLSTROM FIBER COMPOSITES (I) P. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

94,57,783/- as opposed to Rs.53,11,37,045/- shown by the assessee; resulting in proposed adjustment of Rs.15,893,20,738/ on account of determination of ALP of the international transactions of sales. The assessee objected to the aforesaid proposed adjustment before the DRP who dismissed all the objections of the assessee, and accordingly, the adjustment of Rs.15.83

AHLSTROM FIBER COMPOSITES (I) P. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

94,57,783/- as opposed to Rs.53,11,37,045/- shown by the assessee; resulting in proposed adjustment of Rs.15,893,20,738/ on account of determination of ALP of the international transactions of sales. The assessee objected to the aforesaid proposed adjustment before the DRP who dismissed all the objections of the assessee, and accordingly, the adjustment of Rs.15.83

JAYSHRI SILK PROCESSING MILLS P. LTD.,,JETPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.170-172/Rjt/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10) बनाम/ Jayshri Silk Processing Mills A.C.I.T, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1, Vs. Pedhla, Rajkot. Jetpur "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfj5033F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""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 18/09/2019 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 Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 17/03/2017, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S.153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10. Ita Nos.170-172/Rjt/2017 A.Y.S 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10 At The Outset, We Note That The Assessee Has Filed The Adjournment Application But We Rejected The Same As The Issue Was Covered. Hence, We Proceed To Hear The Appeal Ex-Party Qua The Assessee.

94,490/- was made. From the above, admittedly the assessee has not deducted TDS at the rate prescribed under the provisions of law. Moreover, the assessee has also not produced the lower TDS certificate. Now the issue arises whether the proportionate amount of expenditure incurred by the assessee can be disallowed in the event TDS was deducted but less than

JAYSHRI SILK PROCESSING MILLS P. LTD.,,JETPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.170-172/Rjt/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10) बनाम/ Jayshri Silk Processing Mills A.C.I.T, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1, Vs. Pedhla, Rajkot. Jetpur "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfj5033F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""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 18/09/2019 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 Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 17/03/2017, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S.153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10. Ita Nos.170-172/Rjt/2017 A.Y.S 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10 At The Outset, We Note That The Assessee Has Filed The Adjournment Application But We Rejected The Same As The Issue Was Covered. Hence, We Proceed To Hear The Appeal Ex-Party Qua The Assessee.

94,490/- was made. From the above, admittedly the assessee has not deducted TDS at the rate prescribed under the provisions of law. Moreover, the assessee has also not produced the lower TDS certificate. Now the issue arises whether the proportionate amount of expenditure incurred by the assessee can be disallowed in the event TDS was deducted but less than

JAYSHRI SILK PROCESSING MILLS P. LTD.,,JETPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.170-172/Rjt/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10) बनाम/ Jayshri Silk Processing Mills A.C.I.T, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1, Vs. Pedhla, Rajkot. Jetpur "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfj5033F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""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 18/09/2019 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 Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 17/03/2017, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S.153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10. Ita Nos.170-172/Rjt/2017 A.Y.S 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10 At The Outset, We Note That The Assessee Has Filed The Adjournment Application But We Rejected The Same As The Issue Was Covered. Hence, We Proceed To Hear The Appeal Ex-Party Qua The Assessee.

94,490/- was made. From the above, admittedly the assessee has not deducted TDS at the rate prescribed under the provisions of law. Moreover, the assessee has also not produced the lower TDS certificate. Now the issue arises whether the proportionate amount of expenditure incurred by the assessee can be disallowed in the event TDS was deducted but less than

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

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

94,81,129/-, made in the case of Babubhai MansukhbhaiKanjibhai Sakariya Vs. Pr.CIT 5 Kanjibhai Sakariya, assessee brother) as narrated in the assessment order dated 21.12.2018 in the case of assessee brother Shri Babubhai Kanjibhai Sakariya. The assessing officer has not properly verified/ examined the facts of the case and the issue under consideration. Therefore, assessment order has been passed