ALIDAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,GIR SOMNATH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, VERAVAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed deduction under section 80P on interest income of Rs. 42,28,962/- Appeal to the CIT(A)-3 did not bring any relief to the appellant. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s. 234 in absence of the specific instruction under the Assessment order, my kindly be deleted 4. The Ld. CIT (A) erred

M/S. PATEL BRASS WORKS PVT. LTD. ,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT-CIRCLE-5, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

10-08-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2011-12, arises from order of the CIT(A)-1, Rajkot dated 12-02-2020, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A No. 60/Rjt/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2 M/s. Patel Brass Works

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

5. Ground No.2 relates to disallowance of Rs. 9,73,33,826/- being export commission paid to non-resident agents, u/s. 40(a)(ia) on the ground of non-deduction of TDS. The case of the Revenue is this that the person making payment to the non-resident would be liable to be deducted tax under Section 194H

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

5. Ground No.2 relates to disallowance of Rs. 9,73,33,826/- being export commission paid to non-resident agents, u/s. 40(a)(ia) on the ground of non-deduction of TDS. The case of the Revenue is this that the person making payment to the non-resident would be liable to be deducted tax under Section 194H

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

5. Ground No.2 relates to disallowance of Rs. 9,73,33,826/- being export commission paid to non-resident agents, u/s. 40(a)(ia) on the ground of non-deduction of TDS. The case of the Revenue is this that the person making payment to the non-resident would be liable to be deducted tax under Section 194H

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S ATUL AUTO LIMITED,, SHAPAR.VERAVAL

The appeal is allowed

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

disallowance is that deduction u/s. 80-IA was claimed in revised return of income filed u/s. 139(5) of the Act and not in the original Return of income u/s. 139(1) and this is not in tune with provisions of section 80AC and section 80A (5) of the Act. Regarding this the assessee has placed reliance on decision

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

disallowance is that deduction u/s. 80-IA was claimed in revised return of income filed u/s. 139(5) of the Act and not in the original Return of income u/s. 139(1) and this is not in tune with provisions of section 80AC and section 80A (5) of the Act. Regarding this the assessee has placed reliance on decision

ITO WARD 3(1)(4), RAJKOT-STATION- AMRELI, AMRELI, GUJARAT vs. AVADH AGRI EXPORTS, AMRELI, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

5(2) and Section 9(1)(i) of the Act, such income is not deemed to accrue or arise in India. Accordingly, it is not taxable in India. For that reliance is placed on the following judgements of the Hon`ble Supreme Court. (i)CIT v. Toshoku Ltd. (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC): Commission earned by nonresident agents for services

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

disallowance on account of investigation expenses paid by the bank. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the addition of Rs.67,10,325/- being the difference in the amount with reference to the TDS certificate and that claimed as job work income. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

disallowance on account of investigation expenses paid by the bank. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the addition of Rs.67,10,325/- being the difference in the amount with reference to the TDS certificate and that claimed as job work income. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

PRANAM ENTERPRISE,JUNAGADH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.391/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pranam Enterprise Vs. The Dcit Office No.3, City Centre, Opp. Circle-1(1), Rajkot New Collector Office, Junagadh – 362001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffp7926H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Respondent By Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am:

disallowance of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act, of Rs.1,18,000/-. 5. Therefore, during the penalty proceedings

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.

10. Lacs Co Ltd China Commission Rs. 12,30,250 No Total Commission Rs. 13,96,33,023 No 5. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the copies of agreement with the foreign commission agents mentioning the commission percentage and the terms and conditions. In response to this, the assessee submitted copy of an agreement with

AMBARADI SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,AMBARADI , DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT(CPC), BANGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

5 of 10 the due date mentioned in section 139(1) only, the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P was correctly

DHARESHWAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD. ,VILLAGE: - DHARESHWAR, TALUKA: - RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

5 of 10 the due date mentioned in section 139(1) only, the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P was correctly

SHREE SANALIYA SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,LITAL MOTALILIYA SANALIYA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

5 of 10 the due date mentioned in section 139(1) only, the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P was correctly

AMRUTPUR SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,VILLAGE: - AMRUTPUR TALUKA DHARI, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

5 of 10 the due date mentioned in section 139(1) only, the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P was correctly

MISS PARI ANIL GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

disallowed in view of the\nExplanation to the second proviso of section 24 of the Act which states\nthat -"Where the property has been acquired or constructed with\nborrowed capital, the interest, if any, payable on such capital borrowed\nfor the period prior to the previous year in which the property has been\nacquired or constructed shall be deducted under

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

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

5. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. counsel has contended that article 24 of the tax treaty between India and Singapore is not applicable to the case of the assessee as article 24 of the tax treaty has been incorporated to limit the benefits available in certain cases where the income is subject