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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

capital value of the asset and not any profit or gain. This decision therefore would not apply in the present case. 22. In the result, petition fails and is dismissed.” 9. A perusal of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court would indicate that the challenge before the Hon’ble Court was that a statement of tax deducted at source

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

capital value of the asset and not any profit or gain. This decision therefore would not apply in the present case. 22. In the result, petition fails and is dismissed.” 9. A perusal of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court would indicate that the challenge before the Hon’ble Court was that a statement of tax deducted at source

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

capital value of the asset and not any profit or gain. This decision therefore would not apply in the present case. 22. In the result, petition fails and is dismissed.” 9. A perusal of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court would indicate that the challenge before the Hon’ble Court was that a statement of tax deducted at source

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

capital value of the asset and not any profit or gain. This decision therefore would not apply in the present case. 22. In the result, petition fails and is dismissed.” 9. A perusal of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court would indicate that the challenge before the Hon’ble Court was that a statement of tax deducted at source

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)

gain and income from other sources. Besides during the year, assessee received 25% share in enhanced compensation, totalling to Rs. 2,69,41,878/-, on compulsory acquisition of ancestral agricultural land of his family. The above compensation of Rs. 2,69,41,878/- was inclusive of interest of Rs. 1,89,62,258/-, granted u/s. 28 of the Land Acquisition

SHILPA ROHIT THAKKAR,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.403/Rjt/2013 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 009-10) Smt.Shilpa Rohit Thakkar The Income Tax बनाम/ 702, Guruprasad Appt. Officer Vs. B/H. Shiv Ice Cream Ward-3(4) Race Course Ring Road Rajkot Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpt 2819 H .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.Dr

capital gain, and other sources. The Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has received rental income from DHL Express (India) Pvt.Ltd. amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- which was not disclosed in the income-tax return. The AO also got confirmation from DHL Express (India) Pvt.Ltd. for the payment of rent to the assessee of Rs.2

FRIENDS SALT WORKS & ALLIED INDS.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE GANDHIDHAM,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

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

TDS and debited under the head Interest expenses should not be disallowed. Total income of the assessee assessed as under: Page 4 of 22 Friends Salt Works and Ltd. 5. That the assessee filed an appeal against the order of AO dated 17.02.2023 before the Ld.CIT (A) and the addition made by AO was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). with

FRIENDS SALT WORKS AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES,GANDHIDHAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

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

TDS and debited under the head Interest expenses should not be disallowed. Total income of the assessee assessed as under: Page 4 of 22 Friends Salt Works and Ltd. 5. That the assessee filed an appeal against the order of AO dated 17.02.2023 before the Ld.CIT (A) and the addition made by AO was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). with

SMT. SHEETAL RASHMIN PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE I. T. O. WARD-2, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statistical\npurposes

capital gains and I find no infirmity in the order of the AO. This\nground of appeal is dismissed.\n7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.”\n9. The assessee filed an appeal before us, against the impugned order passed\nby the Ld. CIT(A) dated 09.09.2014.\n10. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR stated that in this

SHRI JAYANTILAL PAGHADAL,AT CHARAN SAMDHIYALA, NEW AREA PLOT, TALUKA JETPUR, DISTRICT RAJKOT-365480 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2) (3), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member)

TDS-1, Surat 388 ITR 343 which, relying upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of CIT Vs Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 182 taxman 368/315 ITR 1 (SC) has held that interest paid on compensation/enhanced compensation u/s 28 of Land Acquisition Act forms part of compensation and not interest as contemplated u/s 145A and therefore is not taxable

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

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

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 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

TDS certificate and that claimed as job work income. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id.CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 6. It is therefore prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 7. That

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

TDS certificate and that claimed as job work income. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id.CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 6. It is therefore prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 7. That

SMT. GRACY KUTHUMKAL THOMAS,,VERAVAL vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JUNAGADH RANGE-1,, JUNAGADH

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital in nature and not for the purpose of business, however, if it is correctly recorded in books of account, the books of account cannot be rejected on the ground of its non-allow ability under I.T. Act. The DEPB scheme was started somewhere in Assessment Year 1998-99. Therefore, it is possible that in early days of this scheme

THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, JUNAGADH vs. SMT. GRACY KUTHUKMAL THOMAS,, VERAVAL

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital in nature and not for the purpose of business, however, if it is correctly recorded in books of account, the books of account cannot be rejected on the ground of its non-allow ability under I.T. Act. The DEPB scheme was started somewhere in Assessment Year 1998-99. Therefore, it is possible that in early days of this scheme

ATUL AUTO LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

gains derived from sale of electricity generated by the two windmills. Copy of Audit Report in form 10CCB, balance sheet & profit and loss account of the windmill undertakings along with working of deduction claimed u/s 80IA was furnished before the Assessing Officer and also before me during appellate proceedings in the paper book. Regarding, the first reason provided