ALIDAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,GIR SOMNATH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, VERAVAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed deduction under section 80P on interest income of Rs. 39,11,617/-. Appeal to the CIT(A)-3 did not bring any relief to the appellant. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s. 234 in absence of the specific instruction under the Assessment order, my kindly be deleted 4. The Ld. CIT (A) erred

M/S. PATEL BRASS WORKS PVT. LTD. ,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT-CIRCLE-5, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

5) of the IT Act. The AO further observed that as per section 80IA(7) r.w.s 18BBB the audit report in form no. 10CCB is to be obtained and furnished on or before due date of filing of return so as to entitle the assessee to said deduction. With above observation, the AO disallowed

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

section 9(1) of the Act". 5. Further, the assessee in its written submission dated 23.03.2015, relied on various decisions of Hon'ble I.T.A.T. and High Courts for no TDS to be deducted/ is required while making the payment and therefore, no disallowances

ATUL AUTO LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 5,68,926/- as per computation enumerated in section 14A r.w.s. 8d. ITA Nos.214

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S ATUL AUTO LIMITED,, SHAPAR.VERAVAL

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 5,68,926/- as per computation enumerated in section 14A r.w.s. 8d. ITA Nos.214

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

5. Ground No.2 relates to disallowance of Rs. 9,73,33,826/- being export commission paid to non-resident agents, u/s. 40(a)(ia) on the ground of non-deduction of TDS. The case of the Revenue is this that the person making payment to the non-resident would be liable to be deducted tax under Section

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

5. Ground No.2 relates to disallowance of Rs. 9,73,33,826/- being export commission paid to non-resident agents, u/s. 40(a)(ia) on the ground of non-deduction of TDS. The case of the Revenue is this that the person making payment to the non-resident would be liable to be deducted tax under Section

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

5. Ground No.2 relates to disallowance of Rs. 9,73,33,826/- being export commission paid to non-resident agents, u/s. 40(a)(ia) on the ground of non-deduction of TDS. The case of the Revenue is this that the person making payment to the non-resident would be liable to be deducted tax under Section

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.

5 and 9 of the I.T. Act. Therefore, section 195 should not be read to mean that the moment when any amount is credited or remittance is made to a non- resident; the obligation to deduct TDS automatically will arise. If such an Interpretation of the section is to be made, it will mean that on merely when an amount

DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, RAJKOT vs. M/S TOPLAND FINCORP,, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Cir.1(2) M/S.Topland Fincorp Rajkot. 2, Umakant Pandit Vs. Udhyognagar Mavdi Plot Rajkot. (Applicant) (Responent) Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar Das, Dr Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/09/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav: Revenue Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)-I, Rajkot Dated 24.4.2017 Passed For The Asstt.Year 2013-14. 2. In The First Ground Of Appeal, The Grievance Of Revenue Is That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.3,26,821/- Which Was Disallowed By The Ao With The Help Of Section 14A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income Electronically On 16.9.2013 Declaring Total Income At Rs.(-)6,01,95,642/-. The 2 Ld.Ao Observed That The Assessee Has Shown Dividend Income Amounting To Rs.69,940/-. He Worked Out The Disallowance Required To Be Made Under Section 14A With Formula Given Under Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules At Rs.3,26,821/-. On The Appeal, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Deleted The Disallowance On The Ground That The Alleged Dividend Income Was Not Claimed As Exempt By The Assessee. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Relied Upon The Decision Of Hon’Ble Jurisdictional High Court In The Case Of Corrtech Energy P.Ltd., 45 Taxmann.Com 116. Hon’Ble High Court Has Held That If There Is No Exempt Income Claimed By The Assessee, Then No Disallowance Under Section 14A Required To Be Made.

disallowance under section 14A is required to be made. Hence this ground of appeal is rejected. 5. Ground no.2: In this

SHREE MEENAWALA CASTING,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKTO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallows assessee’s appeal, then in terms of Section 153(5) of the Act, AO can give appeal effect of the order

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

5 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between the India and Finland. He further stated that it was liable to TDS in terms of section 195 of the Act also and since no tax had been deducted at source, he held the expenses liable to be disallowed

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

5 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between the India and Finland. He further stated that it was liable to TDS in terms of section 195 of the Act also and since no tax had been deducted at source, he held the expenses liable to be disallowed

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

5 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between the India and Finland. He further stated that it was liable to TDS in terms of section 195 of the Act also and since no tax had been deducted at source, he held the expenses liable to be disallowed

M/S CHOKSHI VACHHRAJ MAKANJI & CO.,JUNAGADH vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE - 1 (1), RAJKOT - GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

5) The Appellant reserves his right to add, amend or withdraw any of the ground of appeal.” 3. The brief issue for consideration before us is whether Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of late payment of employee’s contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC of Rs. 91,369/- under Section

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES P. LTD.,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 14A of the Act and computing disallowable amount under Rule 8D, recording the satisfaction by the AO that the working of DCIT vs. M/s. Seabird Marine Services P. Ltd. Asst.Year –2013-14 disallowable made by the assessee was incorrect is mandatory and in absence of such satisfaction, no disallowance can be made. 5

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

5 of 10 the due date mentioned in section 139(1) only, the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P was correctly

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

5 of 10 the due date mentioned in section 139(1) only, the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P was correctly