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

disallowance even in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act pertaining to the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08 and 2009-10 and 2010- 11. The assessment orders for the assessment years mentioned above are placed on pages 54 to 62 of the paper book. Therefore we are of the view that claim

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 cannot be applied to disallow the amount of such freight amounting to Rs.2,01,81,428/-. Following the aforesaid discussion, we set-aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition. The assessee accordingly, succeeds on this Ground.” 33. It was further

SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT CO OP PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,SURENDRANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 429/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) Surendranagar District Co. Op. Acit, Circle, Producers Union Ltd. Vs. Surendranagar-363035 Plot No.249, Phase 2 Gidc Market Yard Circle, Sursagar Dairy, Wadhwan Road, Surendranagar-363035 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : Heard On 09/10/2025, Refixed For Clarification On 03.11.2025 & Finally Heard On 02.02.2026 : 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.:

disallowance even in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act pertaining to the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08 and 2009-10 and 2010-11. The assessment orders for the assessment years mentioned above are placed on pages 54 to 62 of the paper book. Therefore we are of the view that claim

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 1534 of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur v. Assistant Commissioner of Income

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 1534 of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur v. Assistant Commissioner of Income

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)

193 Sahara India Real 2595 519 194D Bajaj Allianz Life 80259 8026 2181419 30513 4. On question by the AO, the assessee submitted that it has executed the contract which was awarded by the company namely IVRCL LTD. based in Hyderabad for an amount of Rs. 20,91,670.00 which was outsourced to various parties. As such, the assessee against

HITESH SHAMJIBHAI KATARIA,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, JAMNAGAR.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.370/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Income Tax Officer, Shri Hitesh Shamjibhai Kataria, Ward 3(1), Vs. Pro. Of M/S Kaizen Metals India, Jamnagar. Plot No.375, Gidc, Shanker Tekri, Udhyog Nagar, Jamnagar-361004. Pan: Aqzpk9160E

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. The learned CIT-A subsequently confirmed the view of the AO. 8.1 At the outset, we note that the assessee has claimed similar expenses in the earlier assessment years, which were allowed in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act. As there was no change

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BHAVANI INDUSTRIES,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 108/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 A.C.I.T., M/S Bhavani Industries, Circle-2(1), Vs. C/1-B, 236/3, Gidc, Rajkot. Aji Industrial Estate, Rajkot.

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. A.Y. 2011-12 3 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) who has allowed the ground of appeal of the assessee by observing as under: I have carefully considered the finding given by the AO as well as submission of the AR of the appellant with

SHREE SAMARTH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

section 142(1) of the Act, asking the assessee to submit details of TDS. In response, the assessee submitted required details of the TDS which is placed at paper book Page no.80. Therefore, we find that in respect of TDS, on contract and sub -contract expenses of Rs.13,00,93,467/-, the assessee has submitted that TDS has already been

SHREE SAMARTH SWITCHGEAR AND TRANSMISSION PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

section 142(1) of the Act, asking the assessee to submit details of TDS. In response, the assessee submitted required details of the TDS which is placed at paper book Page no.80. Therefore, we find that in respect of TDS, on contract and sub -contract expenses of Rs.13,00,93,467/-, the assessee has submitted that TDS has already been

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT vs. M/S. BILESHWAR KHAND UDHYOG KHEDUT SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD., KODINAR, KODINAR, DIST. GIR - SOMNATH

In the result Ground No. 3 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed the expenses holding that sugarcane development expenses did not relate to the previous year relevant to the assessment year and that genuineness of the expenses was not established. 7. In appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee contended that aforesaid sugarcane development expenses has been incurred as these payments were made for supply of better quality of sugarcane

SHIV GREEN ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees(ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 595/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 107, Divyam Park, Jamnagar 361001 Opp. H.O. Bhatt Bunglow, Nr. Sanjeevani Medical Store, Jamnagar - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aascs8645J (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 142(1) of the Act, asking the assessee to submit details of TDS. In response, the assessee submitted required details of the TDS which is placed at paper book Page no.80. Therefore, we find that in respect of TDS, on contract and sub -contract expenses of Rs.13,00,93,467/-, the assessee has submitted that TDS has already been

ASHOK GOPALDAS VITHLANI,JAMKHAMBHALIYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees(ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 595/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 107, Divyam Park, Jamnagar 361001 Opp. H.O. Bhatt Bunglow, Nr. Sanjeevani Medical Store, Jamnagar - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aascs8645J (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 142(1) of the Act, asking the assessee to submit details of TDS. In response, the assessee submitted required details of the TDS which is placed at paper book Page no.80. Therefore, we find that in respect of TDS, on contract and sub -contract expenses of Rs.13,00,93,467/-, the assessee has submitted that TDS has already been

JAYESH HARAKHJI PATEL,,RAJKOT vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.1,, RAJKOT

193/- for account No. 015305003488, aggregating\nto Rs.15,29,72,456/-, which was added to the assessee's returned income.\n7. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried\nthe matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has partly deleted the\naddition made by the assessing officer.Aggrieved by the order of the\nLd.CIT

THE DEPUTY COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.1,, RAJKOT vs. JAYESH HARAKHJI PATEL,, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.59/Rjt/2018 &

193/- for account No. 015305003488, aggregating to Rs.15,29,72,456/-, which was added to the assessee's returned income. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has partly deleted the addition made by the assessing officer.Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT