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 145(3) of the ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 Act, on the basis of demonstrated defects in books of accounts, and consequent completion of the assessment as provided u/s 144 of the Act. This aspect has completely been overlooked by the assessing officer while making

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 145(3) of the ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 Act, on the basis of demonstrated defects in books of accounts, and consequent completion of the assessment as provided u/s 144 of the Act. This aspect has completely been overlooked by the assessing officer while making

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 145(3) of the ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 Act, on the basis of demonstrated defects in books of accounts, and consequent completion of the assessment as provided u/s 144 of the Act. This aspect has completely been overlooked by the assessing officer while making

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 145(3) of the ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 Act, on the basis of demonstrated defects in books of accounts, and consequent completion of the assessment as provided u/s 144 of the Act. This aspect has completely been overlooked by the assessing officer while making

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

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

5. The Ld. DR in respect of ground no.1 submitted that the CIT(A) was not right in deleting the disallowance of damages and settlement expenses of Rs.6,12,64,000/- as the settlement documents pertaining to sale of share is not plausible expenses by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was right in holding that

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

5. The Ld. DR in respect of ground no.1 submitted that the CIT(A) was not right in deleting the disallowance of damages and settlement expenses of Rs.6,12,64,000/- as the settlement documents pertaining to sale of share is not plausible expenses by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was right in holding that

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

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

5. Next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 7,54,700/- on account of cash payment under section 40A

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

5. Wesee no reason to take any other view of the mater then the view so taken by this co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s group case in Parsottam Madhavji Bhanusali vs. ITO (supra).In this order, the Tribunal inter alia observed as follows: “8. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions

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

5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The Ld. AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 21 and submitted that the payment in cash was made by the assessee out of the withdrawal from the bank. Similarly, the cash payment was duly recorded

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

5 months after 30-09-2016, hence cash\nsale made by assessee during demonetization period is bogus. Besides, income\ntax expense was not examined by AO, at all.\n23. We note that in appeal effect proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s.263 of\nthe Act, the assessee was not able to prove his stand. The findings of the appeal\neffect order

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

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. Assessee is engaged in the business of Civil Construction as Government Contractor. Sub Contract Expenses are Purchase of Service directly in relation to Sales of Services and the same falls under

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