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

section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. Hence, we do not find any merit in the issue raised by the Revenue and therefore the same is dismissed. ITA No. 360/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2011-12(Department’s Appeal):- 21. The first ground of appeal basically relates to deletion of disallowance of export commission of Rs. 21,60,87

BAN LABS PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.202/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ban Labs Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Ban House, Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Income Tax-1, Nagar, Gondal Road (South), Rajkot Rajkot-360004 (Gujarat) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacb8999C (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D for the investments which may have yielded exempt income. Thus, it is clear that while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) read with section 144B of the I.T. Act for A.Y. 2018-19, on 01.09.2021, the AO has not properly verified/ examined the facts of the case and the issue under consideration. Considering

SHRI NAGICHANA MAHILA DOODH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,AT. NAGICHANA, TAL. MANGROL, DIST. JUNAGADH vs. THE ITO WARD-1, JUNAGADH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the year under consideration. Therefore, we note that entire reasons were recorded to tax cash withdrawals to the tune of Rs.2,87,70,000/-, however, assessing officer disallowed

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)

87,239, as against shortage of 1,66,399, has been claimed, which is 28.33% of the production of salt. Therefore, the washing loss claimed by the assessee was restricted to 10% and the excess shortage @ 18.33(28.33% - 10%) claimed by the assessee was disallowed. The disallowance of excess washing loss worked out, by the assessing officer is as under

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)

87,239, as against shortage of 1,66,399, has been claimed, which is 28.33% of the production of salt. Therefore, the washing loss claimed by the assessee was restricted to 10% and the excess shortage @ 18.33(28.33% - 10%) claimed by the assessee was disallowed. The disallowance of excess washing loss worked out, by the assessing officer is as under

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)

87,239, as against shortage of 1,66,399, has been claimed, which is 28.33% of the production of salt. Therefore, the washing loss claimed by the assessee was restricted to 10% and the excess shortage @ 18.33(28.33% - 10%) claimed by the assessee was disallowed. The disallowance of excess washing loss worked out, by the assessing officer is as under

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)

87,239, as against shortage of 1,66,399, has been claimed, which is 28.33% of the production of salt. Therefore, the washing loss claimed by the assessee was restricted to 10% and the excess shortage @ 18.33(28.33% - 10%) claimed by the assessee was disallowed. The disallowance of excess washing loss worked out, by the assessing officer is as under

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)

87,239, as against shortage of 1,66,399, has been claimed, which is 28.33% of the production of salt. Therefore, the washing loss claimed by the assessee was restricted to 10% and the excess shortage @ 18.33(28.33% - 10%) claimed by the assessee was disallowed. The disallowance of excess washing loss worked out, by the assessing officer is as under

SHRI ISMAIL NURMAMAD SIPAI,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (3) (5),, RAJKOT

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2009- 10. 2 I.T.A No. 249/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No Shri Ismail Nurmamad Sipai vs. ITO 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and employed in Bharat Sanchar Nigam

SHRI CHINTAN KANJIBHAI KATARIYA,ANJAR-KUTCH vs. THE ITO WARD-1, , GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of Rs. 5,87,178/- as per provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further, the Assessing

M/S SHREEJI CONSTRUCTION CO.,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1) (1), RAJKOT

In the result, the case is being restored to the file of the Ld

87,292/- was paid to NBFC and hence the entire disallowance of interest was uncalled for in the instant set of facts. However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: Having considered facts and circumstances of the case I find that the assessee had not taken any plea before AO that the interest does

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\n2.\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\n2.\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\n2.\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

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

87,59,134/-.\n8.\nThe Ld CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad in order No. CIT(A)-ll/C, C. 2/Raj/086-\nR/2017-18, dated 26.03.2018, granted relief to the assessee, aggregating to\nRs.50,18,25,184/-, in respect of various additions. Thereafter in view of order of\nthe Hon'ble ITAT, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot, in order no. ITA No.160\n&161/Rjt/2018 and 92 & 93/RJV2018

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\n2.\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\n\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76 to 80/RJT/2022, relates to penalty\nu/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and appeal

ACIT, CIR-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD, RAJKOT

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.188/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Rajkot District Co-Operative Bank Tax, Circle-1 (1), Rajkot Limited Room No.502, Aayakar Bhawan, Jilla Bankbhavan, Kasturba Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot- Opp: Chaudhary High School, 360001 Rajkot 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaar0564K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr : 09/06 /2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08 /2025

disallowance of Rs. 1,87,65,201/- on account of excess claim of deduction u/s 36(1) (viii) of the Act by way of letter/submission during the assessment proceeding. 2. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law on facts in directing to allowed deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of Rs. 3,75,00,000/- as against