SAHADE vs. INH VAJESINH VAGHELA,RAJKOTVS.PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed and\nadded to the total income of the assessee, in view of provisions of section 40A(3)\nof the Act. Considering such facts, notice u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961\non Dt 08.02.2024 was issued and duly served upon the assesse.\n5. In response to the notice, the A.R. of the assessee submitted the relevant\ndocument

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. The ld CIT(A) noted that there is no justification for the assessing officer to compare the average purchase price for purchases from two group concerns. Even while making disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act, the statutory mandate is to compare the assessee's rate of payment with the market rate

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. The ld CIT(A) noted that there is no justification for the assessing officer to compare the average purchase price for purchases from two group concerns. Even while making disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act, the statutory mandate is to compare the assessee's rate of payment with the market rate

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. The ld CIT(A) noted that there is no justification for the assessing officer to compare the average purchase price for purchases from two group concerns. Even while making disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act, the statutory mandate is to compare the assessee's rate of payment with the market rate

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. The ld CIT(A) noted that there is no justification for the assessing officer to compare the average purchase price for purchases from two group concerns. Even while making disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act, the statutory mandate is to compare the assessee's rate of payment with the market rate

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. The ld CIT(A) noted that there is no justification for the assessing officer to compare the average purchase price for purchases from two group concerns. Even while making disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act, the statutory mandate is to compare the assessee's rate of payment with the market rate

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

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

7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the settlement arrived at by the assessee with the Ruparel Group was in compensatory nature and in respect of damages as well as civil suit and criminal proceedings also part of the settlement expenses. Therefore, the observations made

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

7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the settlement arrived at by the assessee with the Ruparel Group was in compensatory nature and in respect of damages as well as civil suit and criminal proceedings also part of the settlement expenses. Therefore, the observations made

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

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

section 40A(3) of the Act, is not attracted. Thus, we note that disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act, is applicable for each payment and not for the aggregate of the various payments, pertaining to different dates. After going through the paper book submitted by the assessee, under consideration, we find that none of the payment, exceeds

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

7. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee is a trader in land activities, and he has purchased five pieces of plot against the cash payment in the year under consideration which evidences that the assessee is habitual A.Y. 2014-15 3 defaulter. As per the Ld. DR, the case of the assessee also does

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

7, from the referred notice, your good selves have\nasked wide point no.8 followings explanations :\n(i)\nHow amortization of expenses of Rs.70,71,531/- and disallowance\nthereof is not a loss of revenue, read with provision of section\n270(10)(b) read with section 270(A)(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961,?\n(ii)\nDocumentary evidences of putting depreciable

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

Section 40A(3) of the Act. Thus, the AO disallowed the same and added to the total income of the assessee. A.Y. 2012-13 3 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under: “…From these findings of the AO, it can be seen that there

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

Section 38 and accordingly not covered u/s 40a(ia). The appellant craves leave to add to alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and/or rescind all or any of the Grounds of Appeal on or before the final hearing, if necessity so arises. 4. Briefly facts of the case that the appellant is Partnership firm and his present jurisdiction of assessment

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)

7 M/s. Shivabyay Project Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO where books of account of assessee-firm, which was doing contract business, were rejected and its income was estimated by applying proviso to section 145, no separate addition on account of interest and salary paid to partners could be made to such estimated income by Commissioner under section 263. In the case

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)

7 M/s. Shivabyay Project Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO where books of account of assessee-firm, which was doing contract business, were rejected and its income was estimated by applying proviso to section 145, no separate addition on account of interest and salary paid to partners could be made to such estimated income by Commissioner under section 263. In the case