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

197, 204 & 203/RJT/2022 Assessment Years: 2019-20 (for all) Page 5 of 10 the due date mentioned in section 139(1) only, the disallowance

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

197, 204 & 203/RJT/2022 Assessment Years: 2019-20 (for all) Page 5 of 10 the due date mentioned in section 139(1) only, the disallowance

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

197, 204 & 203/RJT/2022 Assessment Years: 2019-20 (for all) Page 5 of 10 the due date mentioned in section 139(1) only, the disallowance

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

197, 204 & 203/RJT/2022 Assessment Years: 2019-20 (for all) Page 5 of 10 the due date mentioned in section 139(1) only, the disallowance

M/S WESTERN INDIA CERAMICS P. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, ground number 4 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

section 197 of the Act for a lower rate of TDS on rent. Accordingly, the assessee has correctly deducted TDS on rental payments as above. However, Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “6.3 After considering the facts of the case and remand report of the AO it was difficult to accept the contention

M/S. ICONIC INFRABUILD LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT- CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt.Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2015-16 Iconic Infrabuild Llp The Pr.Cit, Central 75, Nandkishor Ahmedabad. University Road Gangotri Park Opp: Bts, Rajkot. Pan : Aaifc 5100 F (Applicant) (Responent)

disallowed u/s.68 of the IT Act and treating the same as unexplained cash credits is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 3. The Hon'ble Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Ahmedabad has erred in Newly Added Sundry Creditors are treated as unexplained Cash Credit u/s.68 of the I T Act, 1961 is totally unwarranted, unjustified

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT vs. CHETAN NANDLAL SANGANI, RAJKOT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 248 & 249/Rjt/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2019-20) Deputy Commissioner Of Chetan Nandlal Sangani Income Tax, Central Circle– Vs. 309, Shalin Complex, 2, Madhavi Chowk, Soni Rajkot, “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Bazar, Rajkot-360 001 Floor, Mg Road, Rajko-360 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amvps 5788 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 142(1) of the Act, along with detailed questionnaire, which is reproduced by the assessing officer, in the assessment order, vide, page number 4 to 31. 7. In response to the above notice of the assessing officer, the assessee submitted its reply, before the assessing officer, which is reproduced below: “With reference to the ongoing assessment proceedings u/s, 153A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRC;E-2, RAJKOT vs. CHETAN NANDLAL SANGANI, RAJKOT

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 142(1) of the Act, along with detailed questionnaire,\nwhich is reproduced by the assessing officer, in the assessment order, vide,\npage number 4 to 31.\n7. In response to the above notice of the assessing officer, the assessee\nsubmitted its reply, before the assessing officer, which is reproduced below:\n“With reference to the ongoing assessment proceedings