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 36(1)(iii) of Rs.3,16,82,477/- , though the assessee had made interest free advances out of interest bearing funds. This is ground No.3 of revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 233/RJT/2016 for assessment year 2009–10. Similar and identical grounds in other appeals of the revenue are as follows: (a)Ground No.3 in revenue`s, appeal

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 36(1)(iii) of Rs.3,16,82,477/- , though the assessee had made interest free advances out of interest bearing funds. This is ground No.3 of revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 233/RJT/2016 for assessment year 2009–10. Similar and identical grounds in other appeals of the revenue are as follows: (a)Ground No.3 in revenue`s, appeal

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 36(1)(iii) of Rs.3,16,82,477/- , though the assessee had made interest free advances out of interest bearing funds. This is ground No.3 of revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 233/RJT/2016 for assessment year 2009–10. Similar and identical grounds in other appeals of the revenue are as follows: (a)Ground No.3 in revenue`s, appeal

KANDLA EXPORT CORPORATION,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-2(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the summaries and concise ground No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.& Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.135/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Kandla Exports Corporation Income – Tax, Central Circle – 2(3), Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, A – 305, Aayakar Bhavan, Sector – 8, Gandhidham, Ahmedabad – 370201 Kutch- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk1906F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.136/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Kandla Exports Corporation Vs Income – Tax, Central Circle – Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan, . 2(3), 3Rd Floor, A – 305, Aayakar Sector – 8, Gandhidham, Bhavan, Ahmedabad - 370201 Kutch- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk1906F (Assessee) (Respondent)

68,13,140/-, being disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act, though the assessee had made interest free advance out of interest bearing funds.[This ground No.1 is in Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.135/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12, This ground No.1 is in ITA No. 136/Ahd/2016 of Revenue’s appeal for A.Y.2012-13

HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

iii. The impugned advances written off in the year under consideration represents the prior period expenses which cannot be allowed in the year under consideration. 11.9 It is an undisputed fact the advances written off by the assessee as discussed above cannot be categorized as bad-debts under the provisions of section 36 (1)(vii) and 36

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,, PORBANDAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

iii. The impugned advances written off in the year under consideration represents the prior period expenses which cannot be allowed in the year under consideration. 11.9 It is an undisputed fact the advances written off by the assessee as discussed above cannot be categorized as bad-debts under the provisions of section 36 (1)(vii) and 36

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

36(1)(iii)", "Section 43(1)", "Section 270A", "Section 270A(10b)", "Section 80JJA", "Section 68

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD. RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: us, the error noted in the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee under Section 143(3) of the Act for the impugned year i.e. AY 2017-18 was that the assessee’s claim of deduction for creation of special reserve from the profit of “eligible business” as per Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act had been allowed in excess by the Assessing Officer without properly examining the calculation of the claim submitted by the assessee.

68,93,336/- should be disallowed on account of excess claim of deduction for creating special reserve u/s 36(1)(viii) and should be added to total income of assessee bank.” 5. Ld. Pr. CIT thereafter went on to hold the assessment order as erroneous causing prejudice to the Revenue for the Assessing Officer having not examined the claim

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

iii) of the proviso to Section 34(I) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, as it then stood, a notice of assessment or reassessment could not be issued against a person deemed to be an agent of a non-resident under Section 43, after the expiry of one year from the end of the year of assessment

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

36(1)(iii) of the Act - Rs.1,04,88,591/-.\n(x). Disallowance of hedging loss Rs.79,37,455/-.\n\n6.\nIn respect of above additions, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, was also\ninitiated for concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of\n\n3\n\nhis income. Accordingly notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) dated

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

36(1)(iii) of the Act - Rs.1,04,88,591/-.\n(x). Disallowance of hedging loss Rs.79,37,455/-.\n6.\nIn respect of above additions, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, was also\ninitiated for concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of\n3\nhis income. Accordingly notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) dated 10.07.2017, was\nissued

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

36(1)(iii) of the Act - Rs.1,04,88,591/-.\n(x). Disallowance of hedging loss Rs.79,37,455/-.\n6. In respect of above additions, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, was also\ninitiated for concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of\n3\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj

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

36(1)(iii) of the Act - Rs.1,04,88,591/-.\n(x). Disallowance of hedging loss Rs.79,37,455/-.\n6.\nIn respect of above additions, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, was also\ninitiated for concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of\n3\nH\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj

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

36(1)(iii) of the Act - Rs.1,04,88,591/-.\n(x). Disallowance of hedging loss Rs.79,37,455/-.\n6.\nIn respect of above additions, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, was also\ninitiated for concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of\n3\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj

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)

iii) Kumar Rajaram v. ITO [2016] 67 taxmann.com 110 (Chennai - Trib.) In order to ascertain whether an order sought to be revised under s. 263 is erroneous, it should be seen whether it suffers from any of the aforesaid forms of error. In our view, an order sought to be revised under s. 263 would be erroneous and fall

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

36(1)(iii) of the Act - Rs.1,04,88,591/-.\n(x). Disallowance of hedging loss Rs.79,37,455/-.\n6.\nIn respect of above additions, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, was also\ninitiated for concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of\n3\n==End of OCR for page 3==\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

68 of the Act. 34. Brief facts of the case are that during the course of search cash amounting to Rs.11,25,536/- was found whereas cash balance as per books of the concern was Rs.1,25,480/-. The assessee could not give any explanation about the cash of Rs.10 lakhs which was added as unexplained cash. Apart from above

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

68 of the Act. 34. Brief facts of the case are that during the course of search cash amounting to Rs.11,25,536/- was found whereas cash balance as per books of the concern was Rs.1,25,480/-. The assessee could not give any explanation about the cash of Rs.10 lakhs which was added as unexplained cash. Apart from above