M/S NIHAL PROJECTS,KACHCHH vs. ITO WARD 2 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

36(1)(va) of the LT. Act, 1961.\n(3). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of interest on\ndelayed payment of TDS amounting to Rs. 57,298/-.\n(4). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition amounting to Rs.\n25,35,850/- on account of difference in receipts as per books

M/S. SHAILDEEP ENGINEERING P. LTD., RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2019-20 Shaildeep Engineering P.Ltd. Vs. Adit, Cpc C-1/38, Gidc, Aji Industrial Delhi. Estate, Phase-1, Rajkot Sanosara B.O.,Jaliya Rajkot 360 003. Pan : Aaecs 9245 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri Akash Goda, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 27.12.201 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2019-20. 2. As Transpires From Orders Of The Authority Below, The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Vis-À-Vis Adjustment Made To The Income Of The Assessee In The Intimation Made Under Section 143(1) Of The Act By Way Of Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 80Jja Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,02,500/- & Disallowance Of Employees’ 2 Contribution To Esi & Pf In Terms Of Section 36(1)(Va) Amounting To Rs.2,81,444/-. The Reasons For Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 80Jja Being Non-Filing Of Necessary Audit Report In Form No.10Da Along With Return Of Income & That For Disallowance Of Employees’ Contribution To Esi & Pf Being Late Deposit Of The Same With The Requisite Funds.

section 36(1)(va) amounting to Rs.2,81,444/-. The reasons for disallowance of deduction under section 80JJA being non-filing

SHRI ANKURBHAI DHANJIBHAI KHATARIYA,ANJAR-KUTCH vs. THE ITO-WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee upon

VIJAY COMMERCIAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,RAJKOT vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 862 /Rjt/ 2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) Vijay Commercial Co- Vs. Additional/ Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant Operative Bank Ltd. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vijay Bhavan, Kanak Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Rajkot – 360001 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaav3799C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. R. Mankodi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing :11/02/2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement :05/05/2025

section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), vide order dated 29.03.2022. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1) (1) Hon CIT(A) has failed to examine the evidences submitted to establish that after December 2016 also, the glitches in the EPF portal were continued and VIJAY COMMERCIAL

ACCURATE BUILDCON ,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act should have been disallowed at the time of preparing the Income tax return for the year under consideration. However, no such disallowance is noted from the ITR filed by the assessee for the year. In view of the above stated facts and observations, a notice under section

ACCURATE BUILDCON,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act should have been disallowed at the time of preparing the Income tax return for the year under consideration. However, no such disallowance is noted from the ITR filed by the assessee for the year. In view of the above stated facts and observations, a notice under section

ACCURATE BUILDCON,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act should have been disallowed at the time of preparing the Income tax return for the year under consideration. However, no such disallowance is noted from the ITR filed by the assessee for the year. In view of the above stated facts and observations, a notice under section

ACCURATE BUILDCON,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act should have been disallowed at the time of preparing the Income tax return for the year under consideration. However, no such disallowance is noted from the ITR filed by the assessee for the year. In view of the above stated facts and observations, a notice under section

ACCURATE BUILDCON ,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act should have been disallowed at the time of preparing the Income tax return for the year under consideration. However, no such disallowance is noted from the ITR filed by the assessee for the year. In view of the above stated facts and observations, a notice under section

M/S. CHAMPION AGRO LTD.,,SAPAR (VERAVAL), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

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

section 36(1)(va). 5. Without prejudice to ground no 1, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding the rejection of the book result. The rejection of the book result is not justified. 6. Without prejudice to ground no 1 and 5, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding an addition

M/S. CHAMPION AGRO LTD.,,SAPAR (VERAVAL), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

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

section 36(1)(va). 5. Without prejudice to ground no 1, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding the rejection of the book result. The rejection of the book result is not justified. 6. Without prejudice to ground no 1 and 5, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding an addition

M/S. CHAMPION AGRO LTD.,,SAPAR (VERAVAL), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

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

section 36(1)(va). 5. Without prejudice to ground no 1, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding the rejection of the book result. The rejection of the book result is not justified. 6. Without prejudice to ground no 1 and 5, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding an addition

SMT. TRUSHABA C. MANEK L/H. OF LATE. SHRI CHANDRASINH P. MANEK (PROPERITOR OF DWARKESH ENTERPRISE) ,OKHA, DIST. JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Mrs. Madhumita Roy(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Trushaba C. Manek, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of L/H. Of Late Shri Chandrasinh P. Income-Tax, Manek (Prop. Of Dwarkesh Jamnagar Enterprise), Bazar Lane, Raghunath Road, Okha, Gujarat Pan : Aijpm 0949 F अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Jamnagar [Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 30.03.2021, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. Hon'Ble Pr. Cit Had Issued Notice U/S. 263 In The Name Of Deceased Person, Therefore Notice Issued U/S. 263 Is Not Valid In The Eyes Of Law & Hence Required To Be Quashed. 2. Hon'Ble Pr. Cit, Jamnagar Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Invoking His Revisionary Powers U/S. 263 Without Having Valid Jurisdiction For Addition Of Income U/S. 2(24)(X) R.W.S. 36(1)(Va) Of The Act For Epf For Rs. 8,35,800/- Whereas Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny On The Following Grounds:

disallowed by the Assessing Officer as per the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act. Ld. Counsel

KAVERI COTEX PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAMNAGAR, JAMNGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.338/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S. Kaveri Cotex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Acit, Circle-3, Jamnagar At. Moti Banugar, Nr. Rampar Aaykar Bhawan, P N Marg, Crossing, Opp. Sarvoday Hotel, Manek Chowk, Jamnagar- Jamnagar Highway, 361006 Jamnagar-361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacck8772G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09 / 01 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/ 04 /2025

36(1)(va) of the Act by holding that the appellant did not pay the employees' contribution towards Provident Fund within due date specified in the Act. 4. The A.O. has further proceeded to disallow Rs. 1,75,000/- (12% of Rs. 25,00,000/- for 7 months) out of interest expenditure by holding that the appellant

RAVIRAJSINH KISHORSINH JADEJA,RAJKOT vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, grounds of Appeal raised by the appellant are hereby Dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 48/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Ravirajsinh Kishorsinh Jadeja Vs. Adit Cpc 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No. 312 Silver Chambers, Tagore Road, Rajkot – 630002 (Gujrat) 48/1 48/2, Beratenaagrahara Begur, House Rd, Uttarahali Hobli, Karnataka - 560100 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahjpj0961H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sumit Shingala, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27 / 11 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20 / 01 /2026

disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) is hereby confirmed. In the result, grounds of Appeal raised by the appellant are hereby Dismissed.” 5. That the assessee has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 03.02.2020 and filed an appeal before this Tribunal. i). The Ld. AR Submitted that the assessee could not deposit the PF/ESI in time

O P MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2018-19

36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delayed payments by Employer’s Contribution of PF/ESIC. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi has erred in facts and on law in confirming the action of the AO of disallowing a sum of Rs.11,07,179/- u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delayed payments by Employee