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 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Moreover, there is no justification for the assessing officer to compare the average purchase price for purchases from two group concerns. Even while making disallowance

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 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Moreover, there is no justification for the assessing officer to compare the average purchase price for purchases from two group concerns. Even while making disallowance

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 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Moreover, there is no justification for the assessing officer to compare the average purchase price for purchases from two group concerns. Even while making disallowance

SHRI DIPTEN AHINDRA BHOWMICK,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

disallowance of payment made of Rs. A.Y. 2016-17 2 7,54,7000/- u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant prays that the same may kindly be heard and allowed. 3) That the order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s.250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was arbitrary, bad in law and unjust. 4) That the assessee

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. PARAS BUILDCON P. LTD., JAMNAGAR

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumar

section 40A(3) and hence, the disallowance of Rs. 12,92,615/- is therefore directed to be deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 8. The learned DR before us reiterated the findings contained in the assessment order. 9. On the other

KANAIYA FOOD PRODUCTS,JAMKANDORANA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 336/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Kanaiya Food Products, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of A A, Dhoraji Jamkandorana Income Tax-1, Rajkot 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Road, Near Gujarat Pani Purvatha Tank, Course Ring Road, Rajkot Jamkandodrana-360405 Rajkot-361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamfk9437F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowance under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 40A shall be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 40A where any payment in a sum exceeding twenty thousand rupees is made otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn

SAURASHTA CEMENT LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of Rs.9,82,000/- being 2/3rd out of entertainment expenses on account of alleged non-business and personal use. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. A.Ys. 2010-11 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred on facts

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. SAURASHTRA CEMENT LTD.,, PORBANDAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of Rs.9,82,000/- being 2/3rd out of entertainment expenses on account of alleged non-business and personal use. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. A.Ys. 2010-11 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred on facts

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, JUNAGADH CIRCLE,, JUNAGADH vs. M/S MAHASAGAR TRAVELS LTD.,, JUNAGADH

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

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

Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act and disallowed the commission expenditure of Rs. 1,64,77,275/-. The A.O. also

HARISHKUMAR MATHURADAS BARAI,DWARKA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (4), DWARKA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 171/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2015-16) Harishkumar Mathuradas Barai बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), V.M.Barai & Co. Okha Highway, Income Tax Office, Nr. Ambica /Vs. Varavala, Cinema, Hospital Road, Dwarka-361335 Jamnagar – 361335 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abtpb3824D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Appellant By :Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R. सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/08/2025

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: ITA No. 171/RJT/2025 A.Y.15-16 Harishkumar M Barai “1. The LdCIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in upholding an addition of Rs.6,00,000/-, made by Ld.AO u/s 40A(3) of the Act.” 3. When this appeal was called out for hearing, the Ld. Counsel

SHANTI DEVELOPERS,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 827/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shanti Developers The Dcit, Circle – 1(1), V-88, Opp. S.R.P. Quarter, 150Ft Ring Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Race Course Road, Ghanteshwar, Jamnagar Road, Ring Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360006 Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abpfs2815R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowance made of Rs. 3,66,32,345/- on the alleged ground of contravention of provision of section 40A(3) of the Act, in respect of expenses related to WIP. The addition confirmed is totally unjustified and uncalled for which deserves to be deleted and may kindly be deleted. 3. Your Honour's appellant craves leave to add, to amend

SHANTI DEVELOPERS,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 827/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shanti Developers The Dcit, Circle – 1(1), V-88, Opp. S.R.P. Quarter, 150Ft Ring Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Race Course Road, Ghanteshwar, Jamnagar Road, Ring Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360006 Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abpfs2815R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowance made of Rs. 3,66,32,345/- on the alleged ground of contravention of provision of section 40A(3) of the Act, in respect of expenses related to WIP. The addition confirmed is totally unjustified and uncalled for which deserves to be deleted and may kindly be deleted. 3. Your Honour's appellant craves leave to add, to amend

SHRI SHAMJIBHAI JIVABHAI BALASARA,MADHAPAR VILLAGE, BHUJ-KUTCH vs. THE ITO WARD-1,, BHUJ-KUTCH

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 225/Rjt/2022 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Year:2014-2015

2. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for Rs. 11,75,720/- on account of cash payment in violation of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee in the present case, an individual

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

2).On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the subject, the\nprincipal commissioner of Income Tax – 3, Ahmedabad erred in passing order\nu/s. 263 of the Act when order passed by assessing officer is neither erroneous\nnor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.\n(3)It is prayed that order passed by learned principal commissioner

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 40A(2)(b) of Act. As far as Opening Credit Balance of Rs. 1,26,868/-in the Account of M/s. Friends Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., are concern it may be submitted that the assessee-firm maintains two accounts (ie. Bill Account and Loan Account) in their books of M/s. Friends Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., and as per the bill account

ANKUL CONSTRUCTION CO.,RAJKOT vs. THE ASSIT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , CPC BENGLURU/ITO WD-1(2)(1), RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 484/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) Anukul Constriction Co. Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income 901, Aalap-B, Opp. Shastri Ground, Tax, Cpc Bangaluru / Ito Limda Chowk, Ward 1(2)(1), Rajkot – 360001 Aayakar Bhavan, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfa2385E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Jay Kathrani, Ld. A.R. Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/02/2025

disallowance u/s 40a(ia) without considering fact that non obstacle clause of section 40a(la) are not applicable to Purchase / Direct Expenses allowed as deduction u/s 28(i). 2

SHRI RAJESHKUMAR MAHESHBHAI MANEK,ANJAR KUTCH vs. THE ITO WARD-2, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, additional legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act, when reasons for reopening were ceased to survive. 4. Learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted before the Bench that since the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee, is legal ground and all facts relating to the said additional ground, is on record, therefore, the same may be admitted by the Tribunal

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)

2. It is therefore prayed that the addition of Rs. 1,95,92,793/- on account of disallowance of expenses claimed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act as held in the assessment order be restored.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that for the impugned year under consideration, the assessee had disclosed gross profit