BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 247 To 250 & 260/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income-Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.254 To 256/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of Income- C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji बनाम/ Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No.311, Industrial Estate, Rajkot-36 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Vs. 003 Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

transfer pricing officer, has accepted the above price at arm`s length price, based on the same facts and circumstances, and did not make any addition in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, taking into account this factual position also, the disallowance restricted by the learned CIT(A) to the tune of Rs.1,18,45, 693/- should be deleted, accordingly

SHRI SURESHKUMAR HARJIVANBHAI CHANDARANA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2 (2) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 415/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) Sureshkumar Harjivanbhai Chandarana Acit, Circle – 2(2)(1), Rajkot A-75, New Market Yard, Village-Bedi, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Morbi, Highway, Rajkot- 360 003 Road, Rajkot –360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpc8536E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Durga Dutt, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27/11/2025 : 15/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal Cit(A), Ahmedabad-13 Dated 06.10.2023 [In Short, “Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Act, Vide Order Dated 19.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows:

business of trading and commission agent for Agri Products and partner of M/s. Dhaval Agree Exports. The assessee has filed e-return of income for assessment year (A.Y.) 2016-17, on 05.10.2016, along with Audit Report declaring total income of Rs. 27,90,340/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

transfer pricing officer, in the subsequent assessment\nyears, in the assessee`s case, having same facts and circumstances, and no\naddition were made in the hands of the assessee. Besides, with help of\ndocumentary evidences, the assessee has demonstrated, before the assessing\nofficer that sale by Rajkot unit, is on arm's length price, hence, no addition\nshould be made

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ADDI. CIT, RANGE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

transfer pricing officer, in the subsequent assessment\nyears, in the assessee`s case, having same facts and circumstances, and no\naddition were made in the hands of the assessee. Besides, with help of\n22\ndocumentary evidences, the assessee has demonstrated, before the assessing\nofficer that sale by Rajkot unit, is on arm's length price, hence, no addition\nshould

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

transfer pricing officer, has accepted the above price at arm's length\nprice, based on the same facts and circumstances, and did not make any addition\nin the hands of the assessee. Therefore, taking into account this factual position\nalso, the disallowance restricted by the learned CIT(A) to the tune of\nRs.1,18,45, 693/- should be deleted, accordingly

ASSISTANT COMMISSINER OF IINCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

transfer pricing officer, has accepted the above price at arm's length\nprice, based on the same facts and circumstances, and did not make any addition\nin the hands of the assessee. Therefore, taking into account this factual position\nalso, the disallowance restricted by the learned CIT(A) to the tune of\nRs.1,18,45, 693/- should be deleted, accordingly

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

transfer pricing officer, has accepted the above price at arm's length\nprice, based on the same facts and circumstances, and did not make any addition\nin the hands of the assessee. Therefore, taking into account this factual position\nalso, the disallowance restricted by the learned CIT(A) to the tune of\nRs.1,18,45, 693/- should be deleted, accordingly

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

income in their hands and being business income expenditure necessary for the\npurpose if earning that income and appropriate allowances were deductible there from in\ndetermining the taxable income of the partner.\n(iii) Motichand Rawat Vs. ACIT (1993) 46TTJ (JP)452\nIn the above matter the Assessment year is 1989-90 i.e. prior to amendment made to scheme

AHLSTROM FIBERCOMPOSITES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 437/Rjt/2018 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 Ahlstrom Munksjo Vs. D.C.I.T, Fibercomposites(India) Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham Circle, Mundra Sez Integrated Textile & Gandhidham. Apparel Park (Mitap), Plot No.07, Survey No.141, Mundra, Kutch-370421. Pan: Aagca9137M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, C.I.T Dr सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2023 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

Income-tax, Transfer Pricing Officer 2, Ahmedabad ('TPO') and in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel - 2, Mumbai ('DRP') on the following grounds: 1. Transfer Pricing ('TP') adjustment in relation to international transaction of sales to Associated Enterprises ('AEs') 1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

AHLSTROM FIBER COMPOSITES (I) P. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

Income-tax, Transfer Pricing Officer - i ('Ld. TPO') erred in rejecting the audited segmental financials of the Appellant, thereby ignoring the internal AE and Non AE segment comparison. 1.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/TPO erred in rejecting cost plus method (CPM) adopted by the Appellant and selecting Transactional

AHLSTROM FIBERCOMPOSITES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

Income-tax, Transfer Pricing Officer - i ('Ld. TPO') erred in rejecting the audited segmental financials of the Appellant, thereby ignoring the internal AE and Non AE segment comparison. 1.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/TPO erred in rejecting cost plus method (CPM) adopted by the Appellant and selecting Transactional

AHLSTROM FIBER COMPOSITES (I) P. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

Income-tax, Transfer Pricing Officer - i ('Ld. TPO') erred in rejecting the audited segmental financials of the Appellant, thereby ignoring the internal AE and Non AE segment comparison. 1.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/TPO erred in rejecting cost plus method (CPM) adopted by the Appellant and selecting Transactional

JAMNADAS PURSHOTAM PATEL,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTER-1, RAJKOT

business income on account of receipts of on-money from the real estate\nbusiness on accrual basis (i.e. in the year of transfer of title and possession of property)\ninstead of year of receipts without appreciating the facts, evidences found and seized\nduring the course of search and circumstances of the peculiar case.\n4. In the facts

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2), RAJKOT , RAJKOT

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Shri Rajkot District Co-Operative Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Jilla Bank Bhavan, Kasturba Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Opp. Chaudhary High School, Road, Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afups2094H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Smt. Pallavi, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 06/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay)-2018-19, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Office [(In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 29.12.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 30.03.2023 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows:

business. Non utilization for the specified purpose, tanatmounting to failure to fulfil the condition prescribed for claiming deduction of profits, accordingly results in subjecting the reserves, representing profits, to the extent not so utilized, to tax. These sections therefore cannot be read as specifically providing for taxing of reserves to the extent unutilized, in the circumstance of deduction being provided

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI DEEPAK MOHANLAL PURSWANI, RAJKOT

price received by the seller of the units for which the seller has already\nincurred the cost in order to acquire or process the inventory. Therefore, it is the\nrealization of excess consideration over the cost incurred which should be\nassessed as profit or income. In other words, profit component embedded in the\nsales could be treated as income. Recently

R K DREAMLAND,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

price received by the seller of the units for which the seller has already incurred the cost in order to acquire or process the inventory. Therefore, it is the realization of excess consideration over the cost incurred which should be assessed as profit or income, in other words, profit component embedded in the sales could be treated as income. Recently

R K DREAMLAND,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

price received by the seller of the units for which the seller has already incurred the cost in order to acquire or process the inventory. Therefore, it is the realization of excess consideration over the cost incurred which should be assessed as profit or income, in other words, profit component embedded in the sales could be treated as income. Recently

R K DREAMLAND,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

price received by the seller of the units for which the seller has already incurred the cost in order to acquire or process the inventory. Therefore, it is the realization of excess consideration over the cost incurred which should be assessed as profit or income, in other words, profit component embedded in the sales could be treated as income. Recently

DUSHYANT BHARATBHAI MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD-(2)(1)(2) , RAJKOT

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

transferred.\n3\nITA No. 422/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2015-16\nDushyant Bharatbhai Metha Vs. ITO\nFurther, only sale price minus market value as on sale of conversion shall be\ntreated as business income