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

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

price at which it is transferred to\nthe Rudrapur unit.\n(b) Item-wise list of all the finished components which are finally sold to TATA\nMotors by the Rudrapur Unit.\n(c) Item-wise details of the products which are transferred from Rajkot Unit to\nSanand Unit. And similarly the list containing details of the products transferred\nfrom Sanand

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

price at which it is transferred to\nthe Rudrapur unit.\n(b) Item-wise list of all the finished components which are finally sold to TATA\nMotors by the Rudrapur Unit.\n(c) Item-wise details of the products which are transferred from Rajkot Unit to\nSanand Unit. And similarly the list containing details of the products transferred\nfrom Sanand

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

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

price at which it is transferred to\nthe Rudrapur unit.\n(b) Item-wise list of all the finished components which are finally sold to TATA\nMotors by the Rudrapur Unit.\n(c) Item-wise details of the products which are transferred from Rajkot Unit to\nSanand Unit. And similarly the list containing details of the products transferred\nfrom Sanand

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

price at which it is transferred to\nthe Rudrapur unit.\n(b) Item-wise list of all the finished components which are finally sold to TΑΤΑ\nMotors by the Rudrapur Unit.\n16\nBhawani Industries India LLP\nITA Nos.247 to 250/RJT/2024 & Ors. (AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & Ors.)\n(c) Item-wise details of the products which are transferred from Rajkot

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

price at which it is transferred to\nthe Rudrapur unit.\n(b) Item-wise list of all the finished components which are finally sold to TATA\nMotors by the Rudrapur Unit.\n(c) Item-wise details of the products which are transferred from Rajkot Unit to\nSanand Unit. And similarly the list containing details of the products transferred\nfrom Sanand

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

price at which it is transferred to\nthe Rudrapur unit.\n(b) Item-wise list of all the finished components which are finally sold to TATA\nMotors by the Rudrapur Unit.\n16\nBhawani Industries India LLP\nITA Nos. 247 to 250/RJT/2024 & Ors. (AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & Ors.)\n(c) Item-wise details of the products which are transferred from

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

exemption in India under the provisions of DTAA between India and Singapore. The ld. departmental representative has also contended that judicial pronouncements relied upon by the assessee in the case of far shipping (Singapore) Pte Ltd. vs. ITO International Taxation Hellore by a single member SMC Bench of Hyderabad ITAT dated 16th June, 2017 and other judgments relied upon

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

exemption in India under the provisions of DTAA between India and Singapore. The ld. departmental representative has also contended that judicial pronouncements relied upon by the assessee in the case of far shipping (Singapore) Pte Ltd. vs. ITO International Taxation Hellore by a single member SMC Bench of Hyderabad ITAT dated 16th June, 2017 and other judgments relied upon

PRANAM ENTERPRISE,JUNAGADH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.391/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pranam Enterprise Vs. The Dcit Office No.3, City Centre, Opp. Circle-1(1), Rajkot New Collector Office, Junagadh – 362001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffp7926H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Respondent By Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am:

exemption u/s80IB(10) of the Act, in respect of receipt of Rs.1,18,000/-, being income from electric power and maintenance charges, on sale of housing units, the project undertaken by the assessee. The assessee also argued that the similar claim of the assessee u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act, was allowed to the assessee, on same set of facts

THE JT. CIT (EXEMPTIONS)(OSD), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. GYANGANGA EDUCATION SOCIETY,, RAJKOT

In the result, the Revenue appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: Us That This Similar Issue Is Being Adjudicated By The Very Same Bench Of This Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case In Ita Nos. 15 & 16/Rjt/2015 Vide Order Dated 29.06.2022 Relating To The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12. Further This Order Has Been Followed In Ita No. 472, 1170 & 2316/Ahd/2017 For The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 By Order Dated 31.08.2022. Now The Present Assessment Year Is 2015-16, Which Is Fully Covered By The Above Orders Of This Tribunal & Copy Of The Orders Are Also Placed On Record.

transfer pricing regime also, these two yardsticks are applied to determine arm's length price. In my view, the A.O. has erroneously ignored these two yardsticks and went on to adopt improper benchmark of municipal valuation. Under both these yardsticks, the appellant has reasonably justified that the building rent paid to specified persons was not only reasonable but also concessional

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. GYANGANGA EDUCATION SOCIETY,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumar

transfer pricing regime also, these two yardsticks are applied to determine arm's length price. In my view, the A.O. has erroneously ignored these two yardsticks and went on to adopt improper benchmark of municipal valuation. Under both these yardsticks, the appellant has reasonably justified that the building rent paid to specified persons was not only reasonable but also concessional

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. GYANGANGA EDUCATION SOCIETY,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumar

transfer pricing regime also, these two yardsticks are applied to determine arm's length price. In my view, the A.O. has erroneously ignored these two yardsticks and went on to adopt improper benchmark of municipal valuation. Under both these yardsticks, the appellant has reasonably justified that the building rent paid to specified persons was not only reasonable but also concessional

SHRI BHARATBHUSHAN KISHANLAL GUPTA,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ITO- INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lalsaini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 269/Rjt/2019 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Bharatbhushan Kishanlal Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Gupta, (International Taxation) Prop. Of Aqua Shipping, Suit - Gandhidham – 370210 100, Grain Merchant Association Bldg., 2Nd Floor, Plot No. 297, Wd – 12B, Gandhidham – 370001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afcpg3849N (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

exemption of freight tax for the above vessel is not allowed and should be rejected. This way, the ld CIT(A) was in conformity with the findings of the assessing officer and noticed that in this case M/s. Aqua Shipping has been treated as the representative assessee for the purpose of recovery of the freight tax in respect

SHRI SHARDAGRAM ALUMNI EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST,RAJKOT vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes, in above terms

transfers the property to A for the same price at which he originally\npurchased it, he should be liable to pay tax on the basis as if he has received the market\nvalue of the property as on the date of resale, if, in the mean-while, the market price has\nshot up and exceeds the agreed price by more

KRUPA VILAS GAU SEVA TRUST,KUTCH vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 162/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Year: Na) (Hybrid Hearing)

transfers the property to A for the same price at which he originally purchased it, he should be liable to pay tax on the basis as if he has received the market value of the property as on the date of resale, if, in the mean-while, the market price has shot up and exceeds the agreed price by more

KRUPA VILAS GAU SEVA TRUST,KUTCH vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

transfers the property to A\nfor the same price at which he originally purchased it, he should be liable to pay tax on the\nbasis as if he has received the market value of the property as on the date of resale, if, in the\nmean-while, the market price has shot up and exceeds the agreed price by more

SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK MANAGER (F & A), RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,, 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. 37/Rjt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, Manager (F & A), Rajkot 1St Floor Wing 2, Lic Jeevan Prakash Building, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahas2116H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

price, and ITA No. 37/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Saurashtra Gramin Bank Manager v. PCIT depreciation or loss, if any, is charged to Profit & Loss account. Thus, banks are required to recognize losses on account of depreciation/loss on valuation. The treatment under the Income tax Act, what matters, is the real income principle and method of accounting. However, as we have

RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

price at which it was acquired in the year 2006 in the year under consideration. As per the assessee the impugned transaction cannot be regarded as transfer so as to attract the capital gain and therefore the same cannot be made subject to tax under the head “Capital Gain”. 34. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the reasons