RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

section 40A(3A) of the Act, 1961. (disallowance in ground no.7 in ITA No.194/SRT/22 at Rs.38,000/- and Ground No.3 in ITA No.193/SRT/22 at Rs.11,88,236/- ) (iv) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 194/SRT/2022, and ground No. 2 raised by the assessee, in ITA No.193/SRT/2022, are as follows: “On the facts on the facts and circumstances

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, , VAPI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

section 40A(3A) of the Act, 1961. (disallowance in ground no.7 in ITA No.194/SRT/22 at Rs.38,000/- and Ground No.3 in ITA No.193/SRT/22 at Rs.11,88,236/- ) (iv) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 194/SRT/2022, and ground No. 2 raised by the assessee, in ITA No.193/SRT/2022, are as follows: “On the facts on the facts and circumstances

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

section 40A(3A) of the Act, 1961. (disallowance in ground no.7 in ITA No.194/SRT/22 at Rs.38,000/- and Ground No.3 in ITA No.193/SRT/22 at Rs.11,88,236/- ) (iv) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 194/SRT/2022, and ground No. 2 raised by the assessee, in ITA No.193/SRT/2022, are as follows: “On the facts on the facts and circumstances

M/S. UNITED SALT WORKS,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.208/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) M/S United Salt Works Income Tax Officer, 9, Pruthvi Nagar, 1St Floor, Ward-1(3), 2Nd Floor, Above Vs Station Road, Bharuch- Bank Of Baroda Building, 392001 Station Road, Bharuch- Pan : Aaafu 4725 A 392001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

7 M/s United Salt Works Rule 6DD(b) of the I.T. Rules and could not be disallowed under section 40A

M/S. K.N. DIAMOND,,BILIMORA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1788/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S K.N.Diamond, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Soniwad, Bilimora, Of Income Tax, Navsari Navsari – 396 321. Circle, Navsari. [Pan: Aadfk 3167 H] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Parimalsinh Parmar – Advocate राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

section 40A(2)(b) without appreciating the submission made by the appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding action of the AO in making disallowance of expenses out of Exhibition M/.s.K.N.Diamond Vs. ACIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari./ ITA No.1788/AHD/2016 for A.Y.2012-13 Expenses

RAJAN BUDHISAGAR SINGH,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-4, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.13/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Rajan Budhisagar Singh The Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 506, Priti Complex, Ward – 4, Navsari Vs. Shital Park Society, Opp. Jalkamal Society, Navsari – 396445, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahkps9432M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Appellant By Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, Ca राज"कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke (Sr. Dr)With Shri Kevin Langaliya, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 06/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/11/2025

Section 40A(3A) cannot be stretched to cover all cash payments merely because the assessee is engaged in plying and hiring of vehicles. He submitted that the statutory relaxation is confined to payments made for hiring or leasing goods carriages and not to expenses like salary or purchase of diesel. 7. We have heard both sides and perused the materials

HETAL RAMANLAL SHAH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

disallowance under Section 40A(3)(b) of the Act. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated against the assessee, for concealment of income. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A), vide order dated

THE AMROLI VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-6,, SURAT

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

40A(3), and on the other hand the assessee in its submission dated 17.09.2014 stated that they were compelled to make payment in cash. And that the case of assessee is not covered under Rule- 6DD(j) of the Income Tax, Rule, 1962. On the basis of aforesaid observation, the Assessing Officer maintained the disallowance in the order dated

THE AMROLI VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

40A(3), and on the other hand the assessee in its submission dated 17.09.2014 stated that they were compelled to make payment in cash. And that the case of assessee is not covered under Rule- 6DD(j) of the Income Tax, Rule, 1962. On the basis of aforesaid observation, the Assessing Officer maintained the disallowance in the order dated

THE AMROLI VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT.,CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

40A(3), and on the other hand the assessee in its submission dated 17.09.2014 stated that they were compelled to make payment in cash. And that the case of assessee is not covered under Rule- 6DD(j) of the Income Tax, Rule, 1962. On the basis of aforesaid observation, the Assessing Officer maintained the disallowance in the order dated

THE AMROLI VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

40A(3), and on the other hand the assessee in its submission dated 17.09.2014 stated that they were compelled to make payment in cash. And that the case of assessee is not covered under Rule- 6DD(j) of the Income Tax, Rule, 1962. On the basis of aforesaid observation, the Assessing Officer maintained the disallowance in the order dated

SATYAM TEXTILE PARK,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3), the ld AR for the assessee submits that ld PCIT in the for A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Satyam Textile Park show cause notice noted that although, assessee worked out the net profit of Rs. 2,27,88,724/- but, in the IDS disclosure, the assessee made disclosure

SATYAM TEXTILE PARK,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3), the ld AR for the assessee submits that ld PCIT in the for A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Satyam Textile Park show cause notice noted that although, assessee worked out the net profit of Rs. 2,27,88,724/- but, in the IDS disclosure, the assessee made disclosure

DHANLAXMI PIGMENTS PVT.LTD.,BHARUCH vs. ACIT-, CIRCLE,-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) M/S Dhanlaxmi Pigments Pvt. A.C.I.T., Ltd., Room No. 5, 2Nd Floor, Income Vs. Plot No. 3019/20/21, Gidc Tax Office, Station Road, Estate, Panoli, District- Bharuch. Bharuch-394116. (Gujarat) Pan No. Aabcd 0214 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act could be made against the assessee. To support his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. V.S. Dempo & co (P) Ltd. (2011) 196 Taxman 193 (Bom). 6. On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR

LALIT GARG (HUF),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, VAPI, VAPI

Accordingly. These appeals are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By :

section 40A(3) of the Act and that therefore the AO was of the belief that the income of the assessee for the year under consideration has escaped assessment. During the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, the AO made the addition of Rs.8,59,62,270/- disallowing the unverified purchases holding that

DINESH GARG(HUF),VALSAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VAPI

Accordingly. These appeals are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By :

section 40A(3) of the Act and that therefore the AO was of the belief that the income of the assessee for the year under consideration has escaped assessment. During the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, the AO made the addition of Rs.8,59,62,270/- disallowing the unverified purchases holding that

LALIT GARG (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VAPI

Accordingly. These appeals are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By :

section 40A(3) of the Act and that therefore the AO was of the belief that the income of the assessee for the year under consideration has escaped assessment. During the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, the AO made the addition of Rs.8,59,62,270/- disallowing the unverified purchases holding that

DINESH GARG (HUF),VAPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE CENTRAL - 1L , VAPI

Accordingly. These appeals are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By :

section 40A(3) of the Act and that therefore the AO was of the belief that the income of the assessee for the year under consideration has escaped assessment. During the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, the AO made the addition of Rs.8,59,62,270/- disallowing the unverified purchases holding that