THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

36(1)(iii) of Rs.3,16,82,477/- though the assessee had made interest free advances out of interest bearing funds. This is ground No.3 of revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 233/RJT/2016 for assessment year 2009–10. Similar and identical grounds in other appeals of the revenue are as follows: (a)Ground No.3 in revenue`s, appeal

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

36(1)(iii) of Rs.3,16,82,477/- though the assessee had made interest free advances out of interest bearing funds. This is ground No.3 of revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 233/RJT/2016 for assessment year 2009–10. Similar and identical grounds in other appeals of the revenue are as follows: (a)Ground No.3 in revenue`s, appeal

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

36(1)(iii) of Rs.3,16,82,477/- though the assessee had made interest free advances out of interest bearing funds. This is ground No.3 of revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 233/RJT/2016 for assessment year 2009–10. Similar and identical grounds in other appeals of the revenue are as follows: (a)Ground No.3 in revenue`s, appeal

M/S. GREEN EARTH BIOGAS PVT. LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

36,06,293/-, after\nclaiming depreciation amounting to Rs.4,28,20,442/-, which was on account of\nunabsorbed depreciation. It was noticed by the learned PCIT that the\ncommercial production has commenced after 01/10/2016. In the chart for\ndepreciation, as per Income tax Act, it was found that depreciation had been\nclaimed in respect of newly added assets shown

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.

bogus. 19.About the second issue, which is regarding applicability of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, in respect of these commission payments, the ld. CIT(A) noted that there is no doubt that all these foreign agents are not residents and are not having business connection in India. There is also no doubt that they have rendered services

SUN EXPORTS,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

bogus\nexpenses to the tune of Rs.90,00,000/-, ought to have taxed, as deemed\nincome u/s 69C of the Act, and taxed u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.\nHowever, the assessing officer failed to do the same. Therefore, learned\nPCIT noticed that order passed by the assessing officer is without proper\ninquiry and investigation, which is erroneous

DHRUV PRINT PACK INDUSTRIES,MORBI vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

iii) Further, neither the assessee has furnished evidence of transportation of goods, mode of transportation, delivery challans etc, in respect of alleged purchases of 1011.500 gram gold as discussed above nor the assessing officer has called for and verified the same. The assessing officer ought to have also verified above transactions by way of issuing notice

HETALKUMAR PRAVINCHANDRA RAJYAGURU,RAJKOT vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

bogus\nexpenses to the tune of Rs.90,00,000/-, ought to have taxed, as deemed\nincome u/s 69C of the Act, and taxed u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.\nHowever, the assessing officer failed to do the same. Therefore, learned\nPCIT noticed that order passed by the assessing officer is without proper\ninquiry and investigation, which is erroneous

M/S. DHRUV CRAFT MILL PVT. LTD.,MORBI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT

bogus\nexpenses to the tune of Rs.90,00,000/-, ought to have taxed, as deemed\nincome u/s 69C of the Act, and taxed u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.\nHowever, the assessing officer failed to do the same. Therefore, learned\nPCIT noticed that order passed by the assessing officer is without proper\ninquiry and investigation, which is erroneous

KISHOR VELJIBHAI FOFANDI,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

iii) Further, neither the assessee has furnished evidence of transportation of goods, mode of transportation, delivery challans etc, in respect of alleged purchases of 1011.500 gram gold as discussed above nor the assessing officer has called for and verified the same. The assessing officer ought to have also verified above transactions by way of issuing notice

CHUNILAL GOVIND VANIK,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

iii) Further, neither the assessee has furnished evidence of transportation of goods, mode of transportation, delivery challans etc, in respect of alleged purchases of 1011.500 gram gold as discussed above nor the assessing officer has called for and verified the same. The assessing officer ought to have also verified above transactions by way of issuing notice

SHAMJI NATHU VAISHYA,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

iii) Further, neither the assessee has furnished evidence of transportation of goods, mode of transportation, delivery challans etc, in respect of alleged purchases of 1011.500 gram gold as discussed above nor the assessing officer has called for and verified the same. The assessing officer ought to have also verified above transactions by way of issuing notice

DEEPMALA MARINE EXPORTS,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

iii) Further, neither the assessee has furnished evidence of transportation of goods, mode of transportation, delivery challans etc, in respect of alleged purchases of 1011.500 gram gold as discussed above nor the assessing officer has called for and verified the same. The assessing officer ought to have also verified above transactions by way of issuing notice

SOHAM PAPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

iii) Further, neither the assessee has furnished evidence of transportation of goods, mode of transportation, delivery challans etc, in respect of alleged purchases of 1011.500 gram gold as discussed above nor the assessing officer has called for and verified the same. The assessing officer ought to have also verified above transactions by way of issuing notice

BHARATKUMAR KALYANJIBHAI BHINDI,JUNAGADH vs. PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

bogus\nexpenses to the tune of Rs.90,00,000/-, ought to have taxed, as deemed\nincome u/s 69C of the Act, and taxed u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.\nHowever, the assessing officer failed to do the same. Therefore, learned\nPCIT noticed that order passed by the assessing officer is without proper\ninquiry and investigation, which is erroneous

THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , RAJKOT vs. SHRI SHAMJIBHAI SADHABHAI KANGAD, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue, in IT(SS) No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.11 To 20/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years:2011-12 To 2020-21 बनाम/ Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Deputy Commissioner Of Kangad Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vs. Bbz-S-60, Zanda Chowk, “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Floor, Gandhidham-370 201 M.G. Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Adepk 3471 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.21 To 23/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years:2014-15, 2016-17 &2017-18 बनाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Tax, Central Circle-1, “Amruta Kangad Vs. Estate”, 2Nd Floor, M.G. Road, Bbz-S-60, Zanda Chowk, Rajkot-360001 Gandhidham-370 201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aabca 8202 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.15/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year:2019-20 बनाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Hetab Shamjibhai Kangad Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Bbz-South-60, Zanda Chowk, Vs. “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Floor, Gandhidham-370 201 M.G. Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aqtpk 7484 M (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

bogus purchase is completely illogical. The averments made by Shri Naran Maheshwari in his statement was clarified by him in his duly sworn affidavit. Here it is relevant to emphasise that salt procurement and manufacturing industries by and large are driven by the unorganised and unskilled labourers / agents and village people, staying remotely in desert or forest there for they

M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

iii) Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.286/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2014–15. In these appeals, the assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment under section 147/148 of the Act, on the plea that in order to reopen the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act, the primary condition is that the approval given by the higher authorities under section

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

iii) Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.286/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2014–15. In these appeals, the assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment under section 147/148 of the Act, on the plea that in order to reopen the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act, the primary condition is that the approval given by the higher authorities under section