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)

2 of Revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 233/RJT/ 2016 for assessment year 2009 –10. [ There is similar ground No.2 in revenue`s appeal in ITA No.234/RJT/2016, at Rs.3,54,67,402/- (iii). Ground No.3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of interest under section

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)

2 of Revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 233/RJT/ 2016 for assessment year 2009 –10. [ There is similar ground No.2 in revenue`s appeal in ITA No.234/RJT/2016, at Rs.3,54,67,402/- (iii). Ground No.3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of interest under section

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)

2 of Revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 233/RJT/ 2016 for assessment year 2009 –10. [ There is similar ground No.2 in revenue`s appeal in ITA No.234/RJT/2016, at Rs.3,54,67,402/- (iii). Ground No.3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of interest under section

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)

2 of Revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 233/RJT/ 2016 for assessment year 2009 –10. [ There is similar ground No.2 in revenue`s appeal in ITA No.234/RJT/2016, at Rs.3,54,67,402/- (iii). Ground No.3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of interest under section

SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK MANAGER (F & A), RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 37/Rjt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, Manager (F & A), Rajkot 1St Floor Wing 2, Lic Jeevan Prakash Building, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahas2116H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Disallowance Rs.46,00,000/- However, the assessing officer while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act has not properly examined the above issues. 8. The ld.PCIT had noticed the fourth issue from the assessment records, in respect of various deductions claimed by the Assessee- Bank, such as: (i) assessee had claimed the deduction of special reserve

ABROAD VITRIFIED PVT LTD,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.144/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19

disallowed u/s 68 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee while finalizing the assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act, which has not been done, by the assessing officer. 4. Therefore, Ld. PCIT noticed that assessing officer had passed the assessment order without making proper enquiry and verification on the above issue

KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION CO,TALALA, JUNAGADH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

In the result, ground no.2(e ) raised by the assessee, is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.608/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Krishna Construction Co. The Dcit, Cir.1(1) बनाम Below Dr.Antalas Hospital Rajkot. Station Road, Talala (Gir) Vs. Junagadh. Pan : Aaifk 8897 P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri R.D. Lalchandani, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini:

2(a) raised by the assessee, is allowed. 14. Now, we shall take ground no.2(b) raised by the assessee, which relates to disallowance of Rs.1,66,600/- out of salary paid to partners. 15. In this regard, the ld.Counsel for the assessee, submitted that after making final assessment based on the directions of this Bench, the assessing officer

M/S. ICONIC INFRABUILD LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT- CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt.Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2015-16 Iconic Infrabuild Llp The Pr.Cit, Central 75, Nandkishor Ahmedabad. University Road Gangotri Park Opp: Bts, Rajkot. Pan : Aaifc 5100 F (Applicant) (Responent)

2. The Hon'ble Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Ahmedabad has erred in setting aside the issues of addition of new sundry creditors of Rs.3,66,31,437/-, and mentioned that the AO has not carried out verification of this quantum increase of sundry creditors which were liable to disallowed u/s.68 of the IT Act and treating the same

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORBI vs. MAHENDRAKUMAR BHAGVANDAS RANPURA, MORBI

251 /RJT/2024 & C.O. No. 09/RJT/25\n(निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18)\nIncome Tax Officer,\nJ. K. Chamber, NH 8A, At.\nLalpar, Morbi - 363642\nVs.\nMahendrakumar Bhagvandhas\nRanpura, Para Bazar,\nMorbi 363641\nVs.\nMahendrakumar Bhagvandas\nRanpura Para Bazar,\nMorbi 363641\nIncome Tax Officer,\nJ. K. Chamber, NH 8A, At.\nLalpar, Morbi - 363642\nस्थायी लेखा सं./जी आइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABPPR8089J

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM vs. KAMLESH DEORAJ JAIN, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 594/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Vs. Kamlesh Deoraj Jain, Tax, Bbz-N-108, Khanna Market, Plot No. 20/A, Sector No. 8, Gandhidham, Gandhidham Gandhidham Gujarat 370201 Gujarat 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adopj1769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sunil Maloo, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01 / 12 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/ 01 /2026

251 of the Act. 5. That the Revenue has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 30.03.2025 and filed an appeal before this Tribunal. i). The Ld. DR for the revenue Submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly delete the addition of Rs. 2,94,72,993/- and also wrongly found the Books of Account

KUMAR RAMESH SAHU,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.336/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Kumar Ramesh Sahu बनाम/ The Acit, Sundaram, 72/3, New Cirtcle-2(3) Vs. College Wadi Rajkot – 60 001 150Ft5. Ring Road Opp. Meera Apartment Rajkot – 360 005 (Gujarat) "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aesps 5531 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha:

2. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in Law and Facts in confirming the addition made by AD for unsecured deposits/gifts aggregating Rs.13,54,250 as unexplained income u/s 68 of the Act on the alleged finding that assessee has failed to prove the credit worthiness and genuineness of the deposits/ Gifts and the appellant has not responded to the remand report

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT vs. SUNSHINE TILES COMPANY PVT. LTD., MORBI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 649 /Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2011-12) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Sunshine Tiles Company Pvt. Tax, Cir-1(1), Rajkot Ltd. Vs. Room No. 502, Aayakar Bhavan, S. No. 150 160/P1, B/H Sunhil Race Course Ring Road, Ceramics 8-A, National Highway, Rajkot – 360001 Rajkot – 360001 [Pan No.: Aancs3264L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), vide order dated 23.08.2016. ITA No. 649/Rjt/2024 AY. 2011-12 SUNSHINE TILES COMPANY P. LTD. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2

BABU BHURA VARCHAND,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHUJ-1, BHUJ

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 43/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) Babu Bhura Varchand Income Tax Officer, 124, Ram Krishna Nagar, Bhuj Vs. Ward-3, Gandhidham (Bhuj-1), H.O. Bhuj, Kachchh – 370 001 Income Tax Officer, Bhuj, Nr. Leva Patel Hospital, Mundra Road, Bhuj – 370 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aixpv 1911 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), [in short “the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC”], dated 14/09/2022, which in turn arises out an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO”) u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(1) of the Act, dated 30.12.2021. Babu Bhura Varchand 2. The appeal filed by the assessee