SHREE SANALIYA SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,LITAL MOTALILIYA SANALIYA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

68 taxmann.com 298] (copy enclosed) has held that the return filed beyond the period stipulated u/s 139(1) or 139(4) or u/s. 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for allowing the claim u/s.80P. However, the Hon'ble Court has not considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

AMRUTPUR SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,VILLAGE: - AMRUTPUR TALUKA DHARI, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

68 taxmann.com 298] (copy enclosed) has held that the return filed beyond the period stipulated u/s 139(1) or 139(4) or u/s. 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for allowing the claim u/s.80P. However, the Hon'ble Court has not considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

DHARESHWAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD. ,VILLAGE: - DHARESHWAR, TALUKA: - RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

68 taxmann.com 298] (copy enclosed) has held that the return filed beyond the period stipulated u/s 139(1) or 139(4) or u/s. 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for allowing the claim u/s.80P. However, the Hon'ble Court has not considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

RAKESH BASANTILAL LADDHA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

1. 347/RJT/2018 Vishal Enterprise, ITO, TDS-3 A.Y. 2013-14 Plot No. 3010, 3012, Phase II, Jamnagar. Dared, Jamnagar PAN : AAGFV 6139 H 2. 351/RJT/2018 Rakesh Basantilal Laddha -do- A.Y. 2013-14 Prop. of Mahesh Metal, B-31, Hirji Mistri Road GIDC, STU, Jamnagar. PAN : RKTL 00277 E 3. 352/RJT/2018 Jayeshbhai Kanjibhai Dangariya -do- A.Y. 2014-15 Prop. of Gopinath

JAYESHBHAI KANJIBHAI DANGARIYA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

1. 347/RJT/2018 Vishal Enterprise, ITO, TDS-3 A.Y. 2013-14 Plot No. 3010, 3012, Phase II, Jamnagar. Dared, Jamnagar PAN : AAGFV 6139 H 2. 351/RJT/2018 Rakesh Basantilal Laddha -do- A.Y. 2013-14 Prop. of Mahesh Metal, B-31, Hirji Mistri Road GIDC, STU, Jamnagar. PAN : RKTL 00277 E 3. 352/RJT/2018 Jayeshbhai Kanjibhai Dangariya -do- A.Y. 2014-15 Prop. of Gopinath

VISHAL ENTERPRISE, ,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

1. 347/RJT/2018 Vishal Enterprise, ITO, TDS-3 A.Y. 2013-14 Plot No. 3010, 3012, Phase II, Jamnagar. Dared, Jamnagar PAN : AAGFV 6139 H 2. 351/RJT/2018 Rakesh Basantilal Laddha -do- A.Y. 2013-14 Prop. of Mahesh Metal, B-31, Hirji Mistri Road GIDC, STU, Jamnagar. PAN : RKTL 00277 E 3. 352/RJT/2018 Jayeshbhai Kanjibhai Dangariya -do- A.Y. 2014-15 Prop. of Gopinath

PARAG MAKANBHAI PARSANA,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

1. 347/RJT/2018 Vishal Enterprise, ITO, TDS-3 A.Y. 2013-14 Plot No. 3010, 3012, Phase II, Jamnagar. Dared, Jamnagar PAN : AAGFV 6139 H 2. 351/RJT/2018 Rakesh Basantilal Laddha -do- A.Y. 2013-14 Prop. of Mahesh Metal, B-31, Hirji Mistri Road GIDC, STU, Jamnagar. PAN : RKTL 00277 E 3. 352/RJT/2018 Jayeshbhai Kanjibhai Dangariya -do- A.Y. 2014-15 Prop. of Gopinath

SHRI JAWAHIR RAVICHANDRA MEHTA,DUBAI(UAE) vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result appeal of the assessee vide ITA/81/Rjt/2020 stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Memebr

3. During the course of statement recorded u/s.132(4) of the I.T.Act during the course of search from Shri Ravichandra V.Mehta in reply to question No.13 he has submitted that the return of income has not been filed by him from 1994 to 1997. In his statement Shri Ravichandra Mehta in reply to question No.12 has submitted that there

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

68,000 Corporation Limited, 21 Collyer Peesport Quay, # 02-00 HSBC Building, 6 MT Maersk 3 26,96,32,792 Singapore. Princess 7 MT Maersk Kiera 1 4,03,04,065 8 MT Maersk 2 19,15,34,687 I.T.A Nos. 429 & 430/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 ISS Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT Progress

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

68,000 Corporation Limited, 21 Collyer Peesport Quay, # 02-00 HSBC Building, 6 MT Maersk 3 26,96,32,792 Singapore. Princess 7 MT Maersk Kiera 1 4,03,04,065 8 MT Maersk 2 19,15,34,687 I.T.A Nos. 429 & 430/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 ISS Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT Progress

HOLLIS VITRIFIED PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI, GUJARAT, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT, INDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

1,08,43,431/-. 3. Later on, Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (in short “Ld PCIT”) has exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income- tax Act, 1961. On perusal of case records, it was observed by ld.PCIT that the assessee had introduced huge amount in the company account in the form of Share Application money amounting

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

3) read\nwith Section 144B of the Act. Accordingly, we accept the contention of the Assessee\nthat in the facts and circumstances of the present case the doctrine of merger would\napply. Therefore, we reject the contention of the Revenue that the CIT(A) erred in\nentertaining and adjudicating the grounds raised by the Assessee in appeal before\nthe

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)

3. Ground No.3:The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in detecting the addition on account of disallowance of handling/ spillage/wastage loss of Rs. 1,35,69,000/-. (This is ground No. 2 in Revenue’s appeal in IT(SS) No. 136/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13). 50. Brief facts, qua the issue are that during

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)

3. Ground No.3:The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in detecting the addition on account of disallowance of handling/ spillage/wastage loss of Rs. 1,35,69,000/-. (This is ground No. 2 in Revenue’s appeal in IT(SS) No. 136/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13). 50. Brief facts, qua the issue are that during

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)

3. Ground No.3:The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in detecting the addition on account of disallowance of handling/ spillage/wastage loss of Rs. 1,35,69,000/-. (This is ground No. 2 in Revenue’s appeal in IT(SS) No. 136/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13). 50. Brief facts, qua the issue are that during

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)

3. Ground No.3:The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in detecting the addition on account of disallowance of handling/ spillage/wastage loss of Rs. 1,35,69,000/-. (This is ground No. 2 in Revenue’s appeal in IT(SS) No. 136/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13). 50. Brief facts, qua the issue are that during

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)

3. Ground No.3:The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in detecting the addition on account of disallowance of handling/ spillage/wastage loss of Rs. 1,35,69,000/-. (This is ground No. 2 in Revenue’s appeal in IT(SS) No. 136/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13). 50. Brief facts, qua the issue are that during

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita Nos. 498 & 499/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2020-21 बनाम Gopal Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Plot No.2322-2324, Gidc Metoda, Income Tax Vs. Lodhika, Rajkot, Gujarat-360021 Circle-1(1), Rajkot Pan : Aadcg6113A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala & Shri K. K. Maloo, Ars. राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit.Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025

3) read with Section 144B of the Act. Accordingly, we accept the contention of the Assessee that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the doctrine of merger would apply. Therefore, we reject the contention of the Revenue that the CIT(A) erred in entertaining and adjudicating the grounds raised by the Assessee in appeal before