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

145 taxmann.com 209/[2023] 198 ITD 322 (Pune - Trib.) held that where assessee- employer deposited amount of employees contribution towards employees' provident fund and employees' state insurance corporation beyond due date M/s. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Company vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2017-18 stipulated in respective Acts, disallowance made under section 36(1

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)

1,66,399, has been claimed, which is 28.33% of the production of salt. Therefore, the washing loss claimed by the assessee was restricted to 10% and the excess shortage @ 18.33(28.33% - 10%) claimed by the assessee was disallowed. The disallowance of excess washing loss worked out, by the assessing officer is as under: ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied

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)

1,66,399, has been claimed, which is 28.33% of the production of salt. Therefore, the washing loss claimed by the assessee was restricted to 10% and the excess shortage @ 18.33(28.33% - 10%) claimed by the assessee was disallowed. The disallowance of excess washing loss worked out, by the assessing officer is as under: ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied

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)

1,66,399, has been claimed, which is 28.33% of the production of salt. Therefore, the washing loss claimed by the assessee was restricted to 10% and the excess shortage @ 18.33(28.33% - 10%) claimed by the assessee was disallowed. The disallowance of excess washing loss worked out, by the assessing officer is as under: ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied

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)

1,66,399, has been claimed, which is 28.33% of the production of salt. Therefore, the washing loss claimed by the assessee was restricted to 10% and the excess shortage @ 18.33(28.33% - 10%) claimed by the assessee was disallowed. The disallowance of excess washing loss worked out, by the assessing officer is as under: ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied

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)

1,66,399, has been claimed, which is 28.33% of the production of salt. Therefore, the washing loss claimed by the assessee was restricted to 10% and the excess shortage @ 18.33(28.33% - 10%) claimed by the assessee was disallowed. The disallowance of excess washing loss worked out, by the assessing officer is as under: ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.376/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Saurashtra Gramin Bank, Circle-3(1), Vs. Gopalnaga, Opp. Andh Mahila Rajkot. Vikas Gruh, Rajkot.

1) (vii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer did not allow the deduction claimed as aforesaid on the ground that the provision of NPA was not in the nature of expenditure or loss but more in the nature of a reserve, and thus not deductible under section 36(i) (vii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however, did not bring

THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. CITIZENS CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

disallowance made of deduction u/s. 36(l)(viia) of the I.T. Act of Rs. 33,07,845/-. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the additions made on account of Interest Accrued on N PA of Rs. 31,63,599/-.” We shall first take up assessment year

THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. CITIZENS CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

disallowance made of deduction u/s. 36(l)(viia) of the I.T. Act of Rs. 33,07,845/-. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the additions made on account of Interest Accrued on N PA of Rs. 31,63,599/-.” We shall first take up assessment year

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 placing reliance inter alia upon the decision of Honourable ITAT bench Rajkot in case ACIT VS OMKAR hadipur 20/01/2012 in ITA No. 998/Rjt/2010 where in it has been held that when profit rate has been estimated after rejection of books of accounts u/s 145(3) the provision of section 40(a)(ia) will not be applicable. The relevant portion

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 placing reliance inter alia upon the decision of Honourable ITAT bench Rajkot in case ACIT VS OMKAR hadipur 20/01/2012 in ITA No. 998/Rjt/2010 where in it has been held that when profit rate has been estimated after rejection of books of accounts u/s 145(3) the provision of section 40(a)(ia) will not be applicable. The relevant portion

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 , RAJKOT vs. ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING(INDIA) PVT.LTD. (SWISS SINGAPORE INDIA PVT. LTD.), GANDHIDHAM

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

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

disallowance for A.Y.2015-16, should be confirmed. 59. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contention. We find merit in the submissions of ld. DR for the revenue to the effect that as per the provision of section 43B(f) of the Act, the eligibility for deduction arises in previous year in which payment liability is actually made

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, RAJKOT vs. ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SWISS SINGAPORE INDIA PVT. LTD., GANDHIDHAM

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

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

disallowance for A.Y.2015-16, should be confirmed. 59. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contention. We find merit in the submissions of ld. DR for the revenue to the effect that as per the provision of section 43B(f) of the Act, the eligibility for deduction arises in previous year in which payment liability is actually made

ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GUJARAT vs. DCIT-ACIT CENT-2 RKT, RAJKOT

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

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

disallowance for A.Y.2015-16, should be confirmed. 59. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contention. We find merit in the submissions of ld. DR for the revenue to the effect that as per the provision of section 43B(f) of the Act, the eligibility for deduction arises in previous year in which payment liability is actually made

ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, GANDHIHDAM, GANDHIDHAM, GUJARAT

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

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

disallowance for A.Y.2015-16, should be confirmed. 59. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contention. We find merit in the submissions of ld. DR for the revenue to the effect that as per the provision of section 43B(f) of the Act, the eligibility for deduction arises in previous year in which payment liability is actually made

THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S KRISHNA DEVELOPERS,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and the ground raised by the assessee in the CO is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.620/Rjt/2014 With C.O.No.4/Rjt/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 A.C.I.T., M/S.Krishna Developers, Circle-1, Business Centre, Vs. Junagadh. 1St Floor, Bus Station Road, Lal Bahadur Society, Junagadh.

disallowance made by the Ld.CIT (A) for Rs. 8 lacs is justifiable in the given facts and circumstances. 7.2 Regarding the rejection of the books of accounts, the provisions are contained under section 145(3) of the Act, which reads as under: 98[Method of accounting. 99 “(3) Where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness

THE ITO, WARD 1(3), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S PAVAN CONSTRUCTION CO, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

1,24,822 Total 4,71,17,202 11,27,543 The above disallowances were added to the total income of the assessee. 82. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee before the ld. CIT-A submitted as under: “(b) As submitted earlier, the appellant executing civil contract work at various sites and deployed large

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. GANDHI REALITY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm

disallows future depreciation on goodwill from 01.04.2021 onwards. We note that in assessee`s case under consideration, the assessment year involved, is the assessment year 2018–19, therefore, this amendment does not applicable to the assessee. Therefore, argument advanced by the learned DR for the revenue to the effect that these provisions are retrospective in nature, is rejected. 22.We note

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

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

Disallowance of expenses has been made without following the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act. 7. That, the Ld. AO has wrongly initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A, 271A, 271B and 271F of the Act. 8. That, the Ld. AO has wrongly charged interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. 9. That, the findings