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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH, RAJKOT

145(3) of the Act, based on which the Assessing Officer treated_50%\nthereof being Rs.4,90,00,000/-, as estimated unaccounted profit of the assessee.\n[This is ground No.2 is in assessee's appeal in ITA No.545/Rjt/24 A.Y.2017-18, Ground\nNo.2 in assessee's appeal in ITA No. 546/Rjt/2024_A.Y.2018-19, Ground No.2 in\nassessee's appeal ITA No.547/Rjt/2024_A.Y

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,, 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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH, RAJKOT

145(3) of the Act, based on which the Assessing Officer treated 50%\nthereof being Rs.4,90,00,000/-, as estimated unaccounted profit of the assessee.\n[This is ground No.2 is in assessee's appeal in ITA No.545/Rjt/24 A.Y.2017-18, Ground\nNo.2 in assessee's appeal in ITA No. 546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19, Ground No.2 in\nassessee's appeal ITA No.547/Rjt/2024

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

145(3) of the Act, based on which the Assessing Officer treated_50%\nthereof being Rs.4,90,00,000/-, as estimated unaccounted profit of the assessee.\n[This is ground No.2 is in assessee's appeal in ITA No.545/Rjt/24 A.Y.2017-18, Ground\nNo.2 in assessee's appeal in ITA No. 546/Rjt/2024_A.Y.2018-19, Ground No.2 in\nassessee's appeal ITA No.547/Rjt/2024_A.Y

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

145(3) of the Act, based on which the Assessing Officer treated_50%\nthereof being Rs.4,90,00,000/-, as estimated unaccounted profit of the assessee.\n[This is ground No.2 is in assessee's appeal in ITA No.545/Rjt/24 A.Y.2017-18, Ground\nNo.2 in assessee's appeal in ITA No. 546/Rjt/2024_A.Y.2018-19, Ground No.2 in\nassessee's appeal ITA No.547/Rjt/2024_A.Y

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, RAJKOT., RAJKOT

145(3) of the Act, based on which the Assessing Officer treated_50%\nthereof being Rs.4,90,00,000/-, as estimated unaccounted profit of the assessee.\n[This is ground No.2 is in assessee's appeal in ITA No.545/Rjt/24 A.Y.2017-18, Ground\nNo.2 in assessee's appeal in ITA No. 546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19, Ground No.2 in\nassessee's appeal ITA No.547/Rjt/2024

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

145(3) of the Act, based on which the Assessing Officer treated_50%\nthereof being Rs.4,90,00,000/-, as estimated unaccounted profit of the assessee.\n[This is ground No.2 is in assessee's appeal in ITA No.545/Rjt/24 A.Y.2017-18, Ground\nNo.2 in assessee's appeal in ITA No. 546/Rjt/2024_A.Y.2018-19, Ground No.2 in\nassessee's appeal ITA No.547/Rjt/2024_A.Y

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

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

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