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 36(1) (iii) of the Act. In the order of assessing officer, under appeal, the assessing officer has recorded that the accounts called for by him were produced by the assessee, including documents and evidences. The assessing officer has, however, not brought on record facts/material based on his examination of the accounts and has not established the immediate source

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 36(1) (iii) of the Act. In the order of assessing officer, under appeal, the assessing officer has recorded that the accounts called for by him were produced by the assessee, including documents and evidences. The assessing officer has, however, not brought on record facts/material based on his examination of the accounts and has not established the immediate source

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 36(1) (iii) of the Act. In the order of assessing officer, under appeal, the assessing officer has recorded that the accounts called for by him were produced by the assessee, including documents and evidences. The assessing officer has, however, not brought on record facts/material based on his examination of the accounts and has not established the immediate source

KANDLA EXPORT CORPORATION,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-2(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the summaries and concise ground No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.& Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.135/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Kandla Exports Corporation Income – Tax, Central Circle – 2(3), Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, A – 305, Aayakar Bhavan, Sector – 8, Gandhidham, Ahmedabad – 370201 Kutch- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk1906F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.136/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Kandla Exports Corporation Vs Income – Tax, Central Circle – Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan, . 2(3), 3Rd Floor, A – 305, Aayakar Sector – 8, Gandhidham, Bhavan, Ahmedabad - 370201 Kutch- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk1906F (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 36(1) (iii) of the Act. In the order of assessing officer, under appeal, the assessing officer has recorded that the accounts called for by him were produced by the assessee, including documents and evidences. The assessing officer has, however, not brought on record facts/material based on his examination of the accounts and has not established the immediate source

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

112 ITR 592.\nIn connection to the above, it is submitted that it is well settled proposition of law the\nlegal fiction crated by section 40(a)(ia) will not apply to the provisions of Section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, the disallowance

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACTIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

112 ITR 592.\nIn connection to the above, it is submitted that it is well settled proposition of law the\nlegal fiction crated by section 40(a)(ia) will not apply to the provisions of Section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, the disallowance

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

112 ITR 592.\nIn connection to the above, it is submitted that it is well settled proposition of law the\nlegal fiction crated by section 40(a)(ia) will not apply to the provisions of Section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, the disallowance

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

112 ITR 592.\nIn connection to the above, it is submitted that it is well settled proposition of law the\nlegal fiction crated by section 40(a)(ia) will not apply to the provisions of Section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, the disallowance

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

112 ITR 592.\nIn connection to the above, it is submitted that it is well settled proposition of law the\nlegal fiction crated by section 40(a)(ia) will not apply to the provisions of Section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, the disallowance

PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

112 ITR 592.\n\nIn connection to the above, it is submitted that it is well settled proposition of law the\nlegal fiction crated by section 40(a)(ia) will not apply to the provisions of Section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, the disallowance

SHREEJI CERAMIC INDUSTRIES,MORBI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. A.L.Saini, Am & Diesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.266/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Shreeji Ceramic Industries, The Principal Commissioner Of Vs. 8/A National Highway, Lalpar Income Tax – 1, Morbi - 363642 Rajkot "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfs8846B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit (Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rajkot – 1 [In Short, “The Ld. Pcit”], Dated 30.03.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows.

112 taxmann.com 134 (SC). 2. Artist Tree (P.) Ltd. Vs. CBDT, 52 taxmann.com 152 (Bombay High Court) 3. Vijayeta Buildcon (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Cent. Cir.-1, 123 taxmann.com 133 (Jaipur – Trib.) 4. Rajmoti Road Movers Vs. PCIT-1, Rajkot On going through these judgements and various judgements of different High Courts and Hon’ble Apex Court, we are inclined

ASHOKKUMAR PROJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,PORBANDAR vs. THE PR. CIT, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appear of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.83/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Ashokkumar Projects India P. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, 4Th Floor, Manek Centre, P.N. Cholera Arcade, M.G. Road Opposite, Bhaveshwar Mahadev Marg, Jamnagar - 361008 Temple, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamca5891Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

disallowed under section 40(a) (ia) of the Act, by the assessing officer. Therefore,the order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, hance, ld. PCIT directed the assessing officer to frame the fresh assessment order. 8.Aggrieved by the order of the ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee is in appeal before

MANOJBHAI C. KAMDAR,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.572/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2024-25) Manojbhai C. Kamdar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1)(1), A-47, Aalap Green City, Raiya Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) - 360007 Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adgpk8679J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri R. D. Lalchandani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr

disallowance of rebate claimed under section 87A of the Act.” 3. When this appeal was called out for hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee invited my attention to the order dated 12.08.2025, passed by the Division Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Jayshreeben Jayantibhai Palsana vs. ITO, in ITA No. 1014/Ahd/2025 for A.Y. 2024-25, wherein the issue

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

disallowed and the amount of\nRs. 70,00,000/- is added as unexplained cash credit to the income of the assessee company by\ninvoking the provision of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and to be taxed under the\nprovisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.(Addition u/s 68 of I.T. Act)\nThe assessee

SHRI PLOT SWETAMBER MURTIPUJAK JAIN TAPGACHCHHA SANGH,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, RAJKOT

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

112, Rajkot Aditya Centre, Phulchhab Chowk, Rajkot-360001 PAN: AABTS4462M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Gaurang Sanghvi, A.R. Revenueeby : Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 06/07/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 14/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER BENCH: Both the captioned appeals have been filed at the instance of the assessee

SHRI PLOT SWETAMBER MURTIPUJAK JAIN TAPGACHCHHA SANGH,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, RAJKOT

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

112, Rajkot Aditya Centre, Phulchhab Chowk, Rajkot-360001 PAN: AABTS4462M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Gaurang Sanghvi, A.R. Revenueeby : Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 06/07/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 14/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER BENCH: Both the captioned appeals have been filed at the instance of the assessee

KAUSHALIYA SAMPATLAL DUDANI,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(6), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.659/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2012-2013 Kaushaliya Sampatlal Dudani The Ito, Ward-2(6), बनाम/ K-1/79/4 G.I.D.C., Shanker Ayakar Bhawan, Jamnagar Vs Tekri, Udyognagar, Jamnagar Jamnagar. Gujarart-361005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abnpd8662P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Ld. Sr-Dr

disallowing the assessee's claim of exemption under section 10(38) of The Act. Kiran Kothari Vs ITO [ITA 443/Kol/2017] "we note that the assessee had furnished all relevant evidence in the form PARTMENT of bills. contract notes, demat statement and bank account to prove the genuineness of the transactions relevant to the purchase and sale of shares resulting

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. SENOR METALS PVT. LTD., JAMNAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 260/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-12

disallowance of Rs. 6,93,372/-and Rs. 76,00,509/- claimed by the assessee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, we see no reason to interfere with the same. No error has been committed by the learned tribunal in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A). No question of law, much less substantial question