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

disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Aggrieved by the disallowance so made, the assessee carried the matter

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S. SHIVABYAY PROJECT PVT. LTD. , GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) or general disallowance under section 37(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. In the case

M/S. SHIVABYAY PROJECT PVT. LTD. ,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) or general disallowance under section 37(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. In the case

M/S. L. L. ELECTRICALS,RAJKOT vs. THE NEAC, DELHI , DELHI

In the result, ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is being set aside to the file of Assessing Officer with the aforesaid directions

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

40(a)(ia) r.w.s. First proviso to sub-section (1) of section 201 of the Act., no disallowance could be made

AHLSTROM FIBER COMPOSITES (I) P. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

disallowed in terms of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee objected to the disallowance before the DRP who upheld

AHLSTROM FIBERCOMPOSITES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

disallowed in terms of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee objected to the disallowance before the DRP who upheld

AHLSTROM FIBER COMPOSITES (I) P. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

disallowed in terms of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee objected to the disallowance before the DRP who upheld

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-3(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. SONPAL EXPORTS PVT. LTD., RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Dcit, Circle – 3(1), Vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd. Rajkot Aayakar Bhavan, Room Dhari Bagsara Road, Nr. Ice No. 114, 1St Floor, Race Course Factory, Amreli Ring Road, Rajkot Pan No.: Aajcs0177N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am; By Way Of This Appeal, The Revenue, Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 16.11.2017, Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Grievances Raised By The Revenue, Which Are Interconnected & Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 13,96,33,023/- Holding That Provision Of Section 195 Will Not Be Applicable. 2. On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred In Ignoring The Facts That The Assessee Has Failed To Prove The Genuineness Of Foreign Commission Expenses Before The A.O. 3. It Is, Therefore, Prayed That The Order Of The C.I.T. (A) May Be Set Aside & That Of The A.O. Be Restored To The Above Extent. Dcit Vs. M/S. Sonpal Export Pvt. Ltd.

disallowance u/s 195 of the IT Act. " 20.The ld. CIT(A) observed that in assessee`s case the legal issue involved, is whether sale commission/brokerage paid to a non-resident agents without deducting TDS is to be treated as in violation of Section 195 of the Act, so as to activate provisions of section 40

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. SAURASHTRA CEMENT LTD.,, PORBANDAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

disallowance under Section 40(A)(9) of the Act in respect of salary and other expenses amounting to Rs.10,36,560/-, disallowance

SAURASHTA CEMENT LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

disallowance under Section 40(A)(9) of the Act in respect of salary and other expenses amounting to Rs.10,36,560/-, disallowance

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

disallowance u/s 195 of the IT Act. " 20.The ld. CIT(A) observed that in assessee`s case the legal issue involved, is whether sale commission/brokerage paid to a non-resident agents without deducting TDS is to be treated as in violation of Section 195 of the Act, so as to activate provisions of section 40

AHLSTROM FIBERCOMPOSITES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 437/Rjt/2018 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 Ahlstrom Munksjo Vs. D.C.I.T, Fibercomposites(India) Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham Circle, Mundra Sez Integrated Textile & Gandhidham. Apparel Park (Mitap), Plot No.07, Survey No.141, Mundra, Kutch-370421. Pan: Aagca9137M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, C.I.T Dr सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2023 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

disallowance under the applicable section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is attracted, since the term “commission” mentioned in section

POLOPLUS CONTAINERS,SURENDRANAGAR vs. ASSISSTANT DIRECTOR OF I.T. CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms,

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.436&437/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19&2019-20

40(a)(ia) of the LT. Act 13. In respect of disallowance made by assessing officer invoking section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, we note

POLO PLUS CONTAINERS,SURENDRANAGAR vs. DCIT CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms,

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.436&437/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19&2019-20

40(a)(ia) of the LT. Act 13. In respect of disallowance made by assessing officer invoking section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, we note

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ADDI. CIT, RANGE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

section 80-IC of Rs.1,18,45,693/-, on protective\nbasis, on the alleged ground of inflated profit of Rudrapur unit, being sale by Rajkot unit, in\nrespect of item code 235F and 236F to Rudrapur unit-1. The disallowance made by the\nassessing officer and retained by CIT(A), is totally unjustified, uncalled for and deserves to\nbe deleted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

section 80-IC of Rs.1,18,45,693/-, on protective\nbasis, on the alleged ground of inflated profit of Rudrapur unit, being sale by Rajkot unit, in\nrespect of item code 235F and 236F to Rudrapur unit-1. The disallowance made by the\nassessing officer and retained by CIT(A), is totally unjustified, uncalled for and deserves to\nbe deleted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

section 80-IC of Rs.1,18,45,693/-, on protective\nbasis, on the alleged ground of inflated profit of Rudrapur unit, being sale by Rajkot unit, in\nrespect of item code 235F and 236F to Rudrapur unit-1. The disallowance made by the\nassessing officer and retained by CIT(A), is totally unjustified, uncalled for and deserves to\nbe deleted

ASSISTANT COMMISSINER OF IINCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

section 80-IC of Rs.1,18,45,693/-, on protective\nbasis, on the alleged ground of inflated profit of Rudrapur unit, being sale by Rajkot unit, in\nrespect of item code 235F and 236F to Rudrapur unit-1. The disallowance made by the\nassessing officer and retained by CIT(A), is totally unjustified, uncalled for and deserves to\nbe deleted