PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

disallowance under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty on the ground of\nfurnishing inaccurate particulars, whereas the Tribunal has upheld the order of the Assessing\nOfficer on the ground of concealment of particulars. It is by now well settled that while\nissuing a notice under section 271(1

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

disallowance under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty on the ground of\nfurnishing inaccurate particulars, whereas the Tribunal has upheld the order of the Assessing\nOfficer on the ground of concealment of particulars. It is by now well settled that while\nissuing a notice under section 271(1

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

disallowance under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty on the ground of\nfurnishing inaccurate particulars, whereas the Tribunal has upheld the order of the Assessing\nOfficer on the ground of concealment of particulars. It is by now well settled that while\nissuing a notice under section 271(1

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACTIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

disallowance under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty on the ground of\nfurnishing inaccurate particulars, whereas the Tribunal has upheld the order of the Assessing\nOfficer on the ground of concealment of particulars. It is by now well settled that while\nissuing a notice under section 271(1

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

disallowance under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty on the ground of\nfurnishing inaccurate particulars, whereas the Tribunal has upheld the order of the Assessing\nOfficer on the ground of concealment of particulars. It is by now well settled that while\nissuing a notice under section 271(1

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

73). The\nLearned Counsel also submitted that the assessing officer again issued notice\nunder section 142(1) of the Act dated 06.09.2019, (vide paper book page\nnumber 76) and in response, the assessee replied to the assessing officer, hence\nadequate enquiry was conducted by the assessing officer, in respect of all the\nissues raised by the learned PCIT. Therefore

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S DML EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

sections 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the act”) for A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 respectively. ITA No. 27/Rjt/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 is taken as the lead case. 2. The Ground No. 1 relates to deletion of disallowance made on account of contract cancellation amounting to Rs. 2,80,05,500/-. The appellant

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

sections 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the act”) for A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 respectively. ITA No. 27/Rjt/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 is taken as the lead case. 2. The Ground No. 1 relates to deletion of disallowance made on account of contract cancellation amounting to Rs. 2,80,05,500/-. The appellant

M/S. D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

sections 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the act”) for A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 respectively. ITA No. 27/Rjt/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 is taken as the lead case. 2. The Ground No. 1 relates to deletion of disallowance made on account of contract cancellation amounting to Rs. 2,80,05,500/-. The appellant

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

disallowance under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty on the ground of\nfurnishing inaccurate particulars, whereas the Tribunal has upheld the order of the Assessing\nOfficer on the ground of concealment of particulars. It is by now well settled that while\nissuing a notice under section 271(1

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 195, as no sum in the hands of the recipients, is chargeable under the Act. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the decisions of AAR are applicable only to the petitioner before AAR and there is express bar against the applicability of AAR's decision, as a precedent in other cases and therefore, the assessing officer has grossly erred

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 195, as no sum in the hands of the recipients, is chargeable under the Act. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the decisions of AAR are applicable only to the petitioner before AAR and there is express bar against the applicability of AAR's decision, as a precedent in other cases and therefore, the assessing officer has grossly erred

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 195, as no sum in the hands of the recipients, is chargeable under the Act. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the decisions of AAR are applicable only to the petitioner before AAR and there is express bar against the applicability of AAR's decision, as a precedent in other cases and therefore, the assessing officer has grossly erred

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 195, as no sum in the hands of the recipients, is chargeable under the Act. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the decisions of AAR are applicable only to the petitioner before AAR and there is express bar against the applicability of AAR's decision, as a precedent in other cases and therefore, the assessing officer has grossly erred

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 195, as no sum in the hands of the recipients, is chargeable under the Act. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the decisions of AAR are applicable only to the petitioner before AAR and there is express bar against the applicability of AAR's decision, as a precedent in other cases and therefore, the assessing officer has grossly erred

THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , RAJKOT vs. SHRI SHAMJIBHAI SADHABHAI KANGAD, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue, in IT(SS) No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.11 To 20/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years:2011-12 To 2020-21 बनाम/ Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Deputy Commissioner Of Kangad Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vs. Bbz-S-60, Zanda Chowk, “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Floor, Gandhidham-370 201 M.G. Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Adepk 3471 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.21 To 23/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years:2014-15, 2016-17 &2017-18 बनाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Tax, Central Circle-1, “Amruta Kangad Vs. Estate”, 2Nd Floor, M.G. Road, Bbz-S-60, Zanda Chowk, Rajkot-360001 Gandhidham-370 201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aabca 8202 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.15/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year:2019-20 बनाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Hetab Shamjibhai Kangad Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Bbz-South-60, Zanda Chowk, Vs. “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Floor, Gandhidham-370 201 M.G. Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aqtpk 7484 M (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowances as per various provisions of the Income-tax Act for incurring cash expenses and violation of other provisions also needs to be considered before arriving at the value of real income earned from the uncounted Shri Shamjibhai Shadabhai Kangad & Ors. IT(SS)A Nso.11 to 23 /RJT/2022 and Ors. (AYs : 2011-12 to 2018-19 & Ors..) 22 transactions recorded

SHRI SHAMJIBHAI SADHABHAI KANGAD,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , RAJKOT

disallowances as per various provisions of the Income-tax Act for\nincurring cash expenses and violation of other provisions also needs to be\nconsidered before arriving at the value of real income earned from the uncounted\nShri Shamjibhai Shadabhai Kangad & Ors.\nIT(SS)A Nso.11 to 23/RJT/2022 and Ors. (AYs: 2011-12 to 2018-19 & Ors..)\n22\ntransactions recorded

SAURASHTRA CEMENT LIMITED,PORBANDAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.307/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Saurashtra Cement Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of Near Railway Station, बनाम Income Tax, Jamnagar, Saurashtra Cement Factory, Jamnagar Vs. P.O. Ranavav, Adityana Road, Porbandar, Gujarat-360560 Pan : Aahfs5211J (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld.Ar राज" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanja Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2026 Order

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, rwr 8D of the Rule which works out to be at least to the tune of Rs. 35,89,720/-(1% of Rs.35,89,72,000/-). Such failure on the part of the assessing officer has rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning