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 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

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

VIPULKUMAR HEMANTLAL POPAT, UPLETA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.321/Rjt/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010

disallowance was made by the AO on account of non-deduction of TDS. 8.1 However, from the preceding discussion, we note that the assessee has not furnished the declaration and the PAN of the contractors to whom the payment for the freight charges were paid. Accordingly, the assessee cannot take the benefit of the provisions of section 194C(6

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

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)

disallowance has been made u/s 40(a)(la). I also find merit in reliance of assessee on decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in case of Girnar Food and beverages (supra), Decision of Hon’ble ITAT Ahmedabad in case of Balsara Home Products Ltd. vs ITO (2005) 94 TTJ 970 and decision of Hon’ble Karnataka Supreme court

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, JUNAGADH vs. M/S KESHODWALA FOODS., VERAVAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1133/Rjt/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08) D.C.I.T, बनाम/ M/S Keshodwala Foods, Circle-1, 305-G.I.D.C. Industrial Vs. Junagadh. Estate, Somnath Road, Veraval. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfk6651Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ranjit Singh Cit. D.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D.M. Rindani, A.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 16/06/2010, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 08/12/2009 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2007- 08. A.Y. 2007-08 The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

194C of the Act. The assessee paid the charges to Shri Ramjibhai Kanjibhai Cham whereas the bills for the processing charges were raised by M/s Cham trading organization. The assessee in support of its contention for non-deduction of TDS filed two certificates issued under section 197 of the Act for nil deduction dated 05/09/2006 for Rs.50 lakhs and 12/01/2007

THE ITO, WARD 1(3), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S PAVAN CONSTRUCTION CO, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 194C of the Act. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A). Hence, the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. ITA Nos.760 & 761/Rjt/2010 And CO No.32 & 33/Rjt/2010 M/s. Pavan Cosnt. Co. A.Ys. 2005-06 & 2006-07 59. The second issue raised by Revenue is that ld CIT(A) erred in deleting

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)

6 Rs.12,01,860under the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, the learned CIT-A confirmed the addition made by the AO to the tune of Rs.12,01,860.00 after giving part relief of Rs.8,90,000.00 only. 13. From the preceding discussion, we note that there is no ambiguity to the fact that the amount

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

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

194C were indeed applicable and the assessee- appellant was under obligation to deduct the tax at source in relation to the payments made by it for hiring the vehicles for the purpose of its business of transportation of goods; that disallowance under section 40(a)(id) of the Act is not Ltd. only to the amount outstanding and this provision

M/S MARUTINANDAN CONSTRUCTION,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(3),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

6. We have heard the learned DR and perused the materials available on record. The assessee in the case on hand has claimed an expense of Rs. 39,42,522/- under various heads but without deducting TDS u/s 194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance was made by the AO on account of non-deduction

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

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

194C of the Act on the amount of freight billed separately by M/s Tata Steel. As a consequence, it follows that the provisions of 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

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR. TDS,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.628/Rjt/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.375/Rjt/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-14 M/S. Classic Network Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., 202, Arpan Complex, Opp. Vs. Tds Circle, Swaminarayan Mandir, Rajkot. Kalavad Road, Rajkot. Pan: Aabcc8197Q

6 adopted at 20%, in terms of Section 206AA. The total default is worked out at Rs. 9,67,740. 12. As regards, judicial decisions of Hon'ble ITAT, A Bench, Ahmedabad, in the case of M/s Laxmi Protein Products P Ltd, relied upon by the assessee, it is stated that the facts of the present case are distinguishable from

THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.628/Rjt/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.375/Rjt/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-14 M/S. Classic Network Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., 202, Arpan Complex, Opp. Vs. Tds Circle, Swaminarayan Mandir, Rajkot. Kalavad Road, Rajkot. Pan: Aabcc8197Q

6 adopted at 20%, in terms of Section 206AA. The total default is worked out at Rs. 9,67,740. 12. As regards, judicial decisions of Hon'ble ITAT, A Bench, Ahmedabad, in the case of M/s Laxmi Protein Products P Ltd, relied upon by the assessee, it is stated that the facts of the present case are distinguishable from

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

section 194C and 195 will not apply. We have noticed that ld. CIT(A) in his finding has considered aforesaid Circular No. 723 dated 19th Sep, 1995. I.T.A No. 945/Rjt/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 Page No 7 ACIT vs. M/s. Hiravati Marine Products (P) Ltd. Therefore, we uphold the decision of ld. CIT(A) and no merit was found in this

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

section 43(5). It is immaterial whether transaction is carried out at the recognized stock exchange or not. Even the circular of CBDT cited in the assessment order states that once it is established that the assessee has entered in the transaction of the commodity that they deal the other technical details have no material impact. Hence, this reasoning

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