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 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

THE ITO, WARD 1(3), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S PAVAN CONSTRUCTION CO, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

40A(3) Rs.13,98,537/- (vii) Addition u/s 41(1) Rs.8,12,550/- (viii) Disallowance out of various expenses Rs.2,98,272/- 2. On the facts of the case, Ld.CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is therefore prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be set aside and that

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. 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

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

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 MGM TRADELINK PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 974/Rjt/2010 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2005-2006

disallowance made by the AO for Rs. 16,60,142/- on account of cash payment exceeding Rs. 20,000 under section 40A(3) of the Act. 5

AARYALAND ENTERPRISE,RAJKOT vs. THE DY. CIT- CIRCLE-1 (2), RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

5. Besides the above, the AO also found that the impugned amount of expenditure of Rs. 1,35,80,000/- was incurred in cash and therefore, the same cannot be allowed as deduction by virtue of the provision of Section 40A(3) of the Act. Thus, the AO disallowed

THE ITO, WARD-2(2),, JAMNAGAR vs. SMT. SHITALBEN SAURABH VORA,, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.262-263/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S.Surendranagar District D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Milk Producers Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Union Ltd. Surendranagar. Wadhwan City, Surendranagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 17/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 12/01/2018, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 26/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 20012-13 & 2013-14. Ita Nos.262-263/Rjt/2018 A.Y.S 2012-13 To 2013-14 First, We Take Up Ita No. 262/Rjt/2018 For A.Y. 2013-14

section 36(1 )(va) of the I. T. Act, 1961. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 6,13,744/- u/s. 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, Learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance amounting to Rs.40,000/- u/s.40

M/S. SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT CO-OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. ,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE DCIT, SURENDRANAGR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.262-263/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S.Surendranagar District D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Milk Producers Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Union Ltd. Surendranagar. Wadhwan City, Surendranagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 17/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 12/01/2018, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 26/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 20012-13 & 2013-14. Ita Nos.262-263/Rjt/2018 A.Y.S 2012-13 To 2013-14 First, We Take Up Ita No. 262/Rjt/2018 For A.Y. 2013-14

section 36(1 )(va) of the I. T. Act, 1961. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 6,13,744/- u/s. 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, Learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance amounting to Rs.40,000/- u/s.40

CLASSIC NETWORKS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 6. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent