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

194C, when it is required to be made @10% u/s. 194J of the IT Act, 1961, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act, 1961 cannot be made applicable. As held by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the above referred case that if there is any shortfall due to any difference of opinion

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

194C, when it is required to be made @10% u/s. 194J of the IT Act, 1961, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act, 1961 cannot be made applicable. As held by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the above referred case that if there is any shortfall due to any difference of opinion

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

194C, when it is required to be made @10% u/s. 194J of the IT Act, 1961, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act, 1961 cannot be made applicable. As held by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the above referred case that if there is any shortfall due to any difference of opinion

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)

194C of the Act. But the assessee has failed to deduct TDS on expenses aggregating to Rs. 21,84,141/- and thus violated the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. As such, an amount of Rs.6,55,242/-, being 30% of Rs.21,84,141/- is required to be disallowed under section 40(a) (ia) of the Act.Therefore

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

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

disallowed from deduction, we may usefully summarize the answers to Question Nos. 1 to 3 that the provisions of section 194C

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

disallowances to be made on these issues. The assessee further stated that the Page 3 of 20 ITA No.816/Rjt/2025 -AY 2012-13 ITO vs. Avadh Agri Exports non-resident companies were not having their permanent establishment. Hence, even if the commission had been received by the non-residents on account of the business connections mentioned in section

THE DCIT, CIRCLE (TDS), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. M/S. GOPAL SNACKS P. LTD., RAJKOT, VILLAGE METODA, TAL. LODHIKA, DIST. RAJKOT

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

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

section 194C also stipulates that the "work" shall not include manufacturing or supplying of product as per requirement or specification of customer by using material purchased from person other than such person. It is also relevant to note that in the case of assessee these materials have been purchased from the same suppliers over the years and no such liability

ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, GANDHIHDAM, GANDHIDHAM, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

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

section 9(1)(i) Whether since non-resident agents had rendered their services outside India and all agents had overseas offices and they were not having any permanent establishment in India, commission paid to them was not liable to tax in India Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee)." 25. In view of the above factual position

ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GUJARAT vs. DCIT-ACIT CENT-2 RKT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

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

section 9(1)(i) Whether since non-resident agents had rendered their services outside India and all agents had overseas offices and they were not having any permanent establishment in India, commission paid to them was not liable to tax in India Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee)." 25. In view of the above factual position

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 , RAJKOT vs. ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING(INDIA) PVT.LTD. (SWISS SINGAPORE INDIA PVT. LTD.), GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

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

section 9(1)(i) Whether since non-resident agents had rendered their services outside India and all agents had overseas offices and they were not having any permanent establishment in India, commission paid to them was not liable to tax in India Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee)." 25. In view of the above factual position

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, RAJKOT vs. ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SWISS SINGAPORE INDIA PVT. LTD., GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

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

section 9(1)(i) Whether since non-resident agents had rendered their services outside India and all agents had overseas offices and they were not having any permanent establishment in India, commission paid to them was not liable to tax in India Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee)." 25. In view of the above factual position

SHRI JAY KHODIYAR MAJOOR S M LTD.,AT CHHALANKA, TAL. VISAVADAR, DIST. JUNAGADH vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee dismissed

Bench: Hri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

194C of the Act and there was no reason why disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was not made while framing the impugned assessment year. Further, in absence of any specific restriction on the powers of Ld. PCIT during the course of 263 proceedings itself, which were admittedly not barred by jurisdiction i.e. the second notice dated

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)

3. Thus, the department accept that this is contract receipt Then even if it is remain to be disclosed what should be rate of the taxability of such income. The Hon I TAT, special bench has been kind enough to hold that if should be taxed @ maximum bruin rate as described by the department at 8% only. 4. In this

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

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

3 raised by the Revenue reads as under: 3.The Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in deleting Rs.9,28,106 /- made by AO on account of disallowance u/s 14A . 17. The issue relates to disallowance of expenses incurred for the purposes of earning incomes exempt from tax u/s 14A of the Act Brief facts relating to the same

GOJIYA BHIKHUBHAI,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

194C of the Act.\nTherefore, 30% of such expenses was required to be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of\nthe Act, by the assessing officer at the time of passing order u/s 143(3) of the\nAct, dated15/04/2021.\n11.Further, ld. PCIT also noticed that the assessee has debited expenses in the\nname of Row Expenses, under the Direct Expenses

KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION CO,TALALA, JUNAGADH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

In the result, ground no.2(e ) raised by the assessee, is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.608/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Krishna Construction Co. The Dcit, Cir.1(1) बनाम Below Dr.Antalas Hospital Rajkot. Station Road, Talala (Gir) Vs. Junagadh. Pan : Aaifk 8897 P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri R.D. Lalchandani, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini:

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The disallowance is not justified, [e] The disallowance of Rs. 69,40,248/- being 20% on ad hoc basis out of direct expenses. The disallowance is not justified.” 3. The first grievance of the assessee, is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance made by the assessing officer

ANKUL CONSTRUCTION CO.,RAJKOT vs. THE ASSIT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , CPC BENGLURU/ITO WD-1(2)(1), RAJKOT

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 484/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) Anukul Constriction Co. Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income 901, Aalap-B, Opp. Shastri Ground, Tax, Cpc Bangaluru / Ito Limda Chowk, Ward 1(2)(1), Rajkot – 360001 Aayakar Bhavan, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfa2385E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Jay Kathrani, Ld. A.R. Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/02/2025

3 Intimation without providing Opportunity of being heard: 1. Intimation u/s 143(1) r.w.s. 154 was passed without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with First Proviso to Section 143(1). ITEM NO 4 Wrong applicability of provision of Section 40(a)(ia): 1. CPC has made addition by way of disallowance u/s 40a(ia) without

THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed and withdrawn and added back to the taxable income of the assessee company.” 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) discussed facts of each of the individual projects carried out by the assessee on merits, and based on the analysis of each of the projects, gave part relief to the assessee. The Department and the assessee are in appeal

BACKBONE ENTERPRISE LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed and withdrawn and added back to the taxable income of the assessee company.” 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) discussed facts of each of the individual projects carried out by the assessee on merits, and based on the analysis of each of the projects, gave part relief to the assessee. The Department and the assessee are in appeal