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

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)

section 40A(2)(b) and hence the assessing officer's action of comparing the purchase price and holding that the purchases from one of them is at inflated rate vis-à-vis those from other, is without any base, particularly when there is no allegation of sham or bogus

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)

section 40A(2)(b) and hence the assessing officer's action of comparing the purchase price and holding that the purchases from one of them is at inflated rate vis-à-vis those from other, is without any base, particularly when there is no allegation of sham or bogus

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)

section 40A(2)(b) and hence the assessing officer's action of comparing the purchase price and holding that the purchases from one of them is at inflated rate vis-à-vis those from other, is without any base, particularly when there is no allegation of sham or bogus

HITESH SHAMJIBHAI KATARIA,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, JAMNAGAR.

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.370/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Income Tax Officer, Shri Hitesh Shamjibhai Kataria, Ward 3(1), Vs. Pro. Of M/S Kaizen Metals India, Jamnagar. Plot No.375, Gidc, Shanker Tekri, Udhyog Nagar, Jamnagar-361004. Pan: Aqzpk9160E

purchasers and the expenses incurred on such visits have been claimed as business expenses. As per the AO thus the salary is paid to the employees for looking after the scraps and hence the commission on the same is not justifiable. The case laws as cited by the AR of the appellant in his submission are not applicable

SMT. GRACY KUTHUMKAL THOMAS,,VERAVAL vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JUNAGADH RANGE-1,, JUNAGADH

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

bogus or incorrect. Assessing Officer has only raised a suspicion that the purchase are from unregistered dealers therefore they may be incorrect. Assessing Officer has not brought out any evidence by examining the suppliers of goods to reach any conclusion to reject the books of accounts. 4.2 Appellant has not accounted for the body parts of fish, which are removed

THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, JUNAGADH vs. SMT. GRACY KUTHUKMAL THOMAS,, VERAVAL

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

bogus or incorrect. Assessing Officer has only raised a suspicion that the purchase are from unregistered dealers therefore they may be incorrect. Assessing Officer has not brought out any evidence by examining the suppliers of goods to reach any conclusion to reject the books of accounts. 4.2 Appellant has not accounted for the body parts of fish, which are removed

THE ITO, WARD-4,, MORBI vs. M/S RAIYANI COTTON INDUSTRIES,, MORBI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No. 129/Rjt/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12)

bogus loans/deposits received from four different parties. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition u/s. 40A(3) made by AO being purchase of kapas from different parties of total Rs. 5,00,000/-. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S MGM TRADELINK PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 974/Rjt/2010 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2005-2006

40A(3) of the Act read with rule 6DD of Income Tax Rules. 11.1 From the preceding discussion we note that there are contradictory statements furnished by the assessee and his Ld. counsel viz a viz confirmation filed by the supplier. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee was given enough opportunities before the authorities below to raise

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

40A(3) of the Act as agreed by the assessee.\"\nThere has been no apparent reason as to why the penalty proceedings in respect\nof preliminary and pre-operative expenses of Rs.70,71,531/-, have been\ndropped. The assessee, vide reply dated 16.10.2019 in respect of the penalty\nproceedings on this addition has summarily contended that there was no loss

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

40A(3) and not granted for addition to be made u/s 69C of the Act, vide approval under section 151 of the Act, for assessment year 2013–14, reproduced above in this order.Therefore, we note that provisions of section 151 of the Act is not an empty formality, it is a jurisdictional requirement for the assessing officer to exercise power

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

40A(3) and not granted for addition to be made u/s 69C of the Act, vide approval under section 151 of the Act, for assessment year 2013–14, reproduced above in this order.Therefore, we note that provisions of section 151 of the Act is not an empty formality, it is a jurisdictional requirement for the assessing officer to exercise power

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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

40A(3) and not granted for addition to be made u/s 69C of the Act, vide approval under section 151 of the Act, for assessment year 2013–14, reproduced above in this order.Therefore, we note that provisions of section 151 of the Act is not an empty formality, it is a jurisdictional requirement for the assessing officer to exercise power

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

40A(3) and not granted for addition to be made u/s 69C of the Act, vide approval under section 151 of the Act, for assessment year 2013–14, reproduced above in this order.Therefore, we note that provisions of section 151 of the Act is not an empty formality, it is a jurisdictional requirement for the assessing officer to exercise power

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

40A(3) and not granted for addition to be made u/s 69C of the Act, vide approval under section 151 of the Act, for assessment year 2013–14, reproduced above in this order.Therefore, we note that provisions of section 151 of the Act is not an empty formality, it is a jurisdictional requirement for the assessing officer to exercise power

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT vs. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD., RJAKOT

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

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

40A(3) and not granted for addition to be made u/s 69C of the Act, vide approval under section 151 of the Act, for assessment year 2013–14, reproduced above in this order.Therefore, we note that provisions of section 151 of the Act is not an empty formality, it is a jurisdictional requirement for the assessing officer to exercise power

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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

40A(3) and not granted for addition to be made u/s 69C of the Act, vide approval under section 151 of the Act, for assessment year 2013–14, reproduced above in this order.Therefore, we note that provisions of section 151 of the Act is not an empty formality, it is a jurisdictional requirement for the assessing officer to exercise power

CLASSIC NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

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

40A(3) and not granted for addition to be made u/s 69C of the Act, vide approval under section 151 of the Act, for assessment year 2013–14, reproduced above in this order.Therefore, we note that provisions of section 151 of the Act is not an empty formality, it is a jurisdictional requirement for the assessing officer to exercise power

CLASSIC NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

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

40A(3) and not granted for addition to be made u/s 69C of the Act, vide approval under section 151 of the Act, for assessment year 2013–14, reproduced above in this order.Therefore, we note that provisions of section 151 of the Act is not an empty formality, it is a jurisdictional requirement for the assessing officer to exercise power