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)

3. Ground No.3:The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in detecting the addition on account of disallowance of handling/ spillage/wastage loss of Rs. 1,35,69,000/-. (This is ground No. 2 in Revenue’s appeal in IT(SS) No. 136/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13). 50. Brief facts, qua the issue are that during

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)

3. Ground No.3:The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in detecting the addition on account of disallowance of handling/ spillage/wastage loss of Rs. 1,35,69,000/-. (This is ground No. 2 in Revenue’s appeal in IT(SS) No. 136/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13). 50. Brief facts, qua the issue are that during

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)

3. Ground No.3:The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in detecting the addition on account of disallowance of handling/ spillage/wastage loss of Rs. 1,35,69,000/-. (This is ground No. 2 in Revenue’s appeal in IT(SS) No. 136/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13). 50. Brief facts, qua the issue are that during

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)

3. Ground No.3:The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in detecting the addition on account of disallowance of handling/ spillage/wastage loss of Rs. 1,35,69,000/-. (This is ground No. 2 in Revenue’s appeal in IT(SS) No. 136/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13). 50. Brief facts, qua the issue are that during

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)

3. Ground No.3:The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in detecting the addition on account of disallowance of handling/ spillage/wastage loss of Rs. 1,35,69,000/-. (This is ground No. 2 in Revenue’s appeal in IT(SS) No. 136/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13). 50. Brief facts, qua the issue are that during

M/S PREMJI VALJI & SONS,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 125/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 M/S Premji Valji & Sons, The Principal Commissioner Of “Kuvarjibhai Tower”, Vs. Income Tax, Palace Road, Rajkot-1, Rajkot. Rajkot. Pan: Aacfp7696K

249 of the paper book where the reply of the assessee in response to the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act as mentioned above was placed. Thus, the learned AR contended that there cannot be A.Y. 2017-18 6 said that the assessment order is erroneous and causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue in the given

FUSION GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.190/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Principal Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No.555/P1/91, Tax-1, Vs. Nr. Khokhra Hanuman Temple, 2Nd Jetpar Road, Morbi-363641 Rajkot, Floor, “Aayakar Bhawan”, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcf 0696 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Praveen Verma, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot [In Short ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 27.03.2023, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. The Revision Order U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 28.03.2023 Is Bad In Law. 2. The Hon’Ble Pr. Cit-1, Rajkot Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Completing The Revision Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Hurriedly In Short Span Of Time Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd.

disallowance in this regard. Therefore, learned PCIT noted that the impugned order was passed by the then assessing officer without making enquiries or verification, which should have been made. Thus, this case is covered by clause(a) of Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act also. Therefore, learned PCIT held that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer

PUNABHAI G. PARDAVA,,DHARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(4),, AMRELI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

3 of 5 9. We have heard the learned DR and perused the materials available on record. As regards the 1st contention of the assessee that the rent was paid to three different parties amounting to ₹1,20,000 per person and therefore there is no violation of the provisions of section 94-I read with section

SHREE PIPARDI SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 448/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2019-20)

Section 249(2) of the Act. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay in filing appeal before Ld.CIT(A) and directed the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue in accordance with law. Th contents of the petition for condoning the delay are reproduced below

M/S SAFARI FINE CLOTHING PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM. vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM., GANDHIDHAM

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedिनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Acit, Ltd., Vs. Gandhidham Circle Shed No.280/281, A Type, Gandhidham. Sector No.3, Ka Sez, Gandhinagar- Kutch वष" Ito, M/S. Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ward-2, Vs. Ltd., Gandhidham "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajcs 0565 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan L. Agarwal, Ar. Revenue By : S Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/08/2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03/10/2018

249 to 268 of the paper book. 6.3 The Ld. AR also submitted that the commission was paid in the subsequent years and the same was accepted without any disallowance. The detail of the commission paid by the assessee in the subsequent years is placed on pages 387 to 391 of the paper book. 6.4 The Ld. AR also submitted

NARANBHAI RAMBHAI ZALA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, JUNAGADH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming order U/s. 144 passed without properly service of the notice on the appellant. The proceedings being bad in law deserve annulment. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in not confirming providing the material available with

KANTILAL BABULAL SOLANKI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, JUNAGADH

In the result, the quantum appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 44AD is applicable to assessee conducting small scale business I.T.A No. 124/Rjt/2016 & 115/A/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 4 Kantilal Babulal Solanki Vs. ITO enterprises wherein concept of 'deemed profit' on presumptive basis can be safely applied as business results are generally predictable in long run. But how can this principle be applied in case of receipts falling under

KANTILAL BABULAL SOLANKI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, JUNAGADH

In the result, the quantum appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 44AD is applicable to assessee conducting small scale business I.T.A No. 124/Rjt/2016 & 115/A/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 4 Kantilal Babulal Solanki Vs. ITO enterprises wherein concept of 'deemed profit' on presumptive basis can be safely applied as business results are generally predictable in long run. But how can this principle be applied in case of receipts falling under