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

35,481 10,30,67,450 33.46% Sanand N.A. N.A. N.A Rudrapur-I 14,46,11,771 6,06,72,651 41.96% Rudrapur-II N.A. N.A. N.A. Gurgaon 7,12,88,777 48,11,266 6.75% The Rudrapur unit showed net profit of Rs. 3,32,20,406/- and claimed deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act of Rs.2

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

35,481 10,30,67,450 33.46% Sanand N.A. N.A. N.A Rudrapur-I 14,46,11,771 6,06,72,651 41.96% Rudrapur-II N.A. N.A. N.A. Gurgaon 7,12,88,777 48,11,266 6.75% The Rudrapur unit showed net profit of Rs. 3,32,20,406/- and claimed deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act of Rs.2

NISHANT PAREKH- LEGAL HEIR OF MINA PAREKH,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.215/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-2016) Nishant Parekh – Legal Heir Of Vs. Income Tax Officer Mina Parekh Aaykar Bhavan 322 Madhav Square, Opp 361001, Gujrat Avantika Complex, Limda Lane Road, Gujrat-361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpp9471F (Appellant) (Respondent)

35,919/- for long term gain on sale of shares of PS IT Infrastructure & Services Limited (Erstwhile known as Parag Shilpa Investment Limited). The claim of the assessee is duly supported and based on the third- party evidences as submitted in the assessment proceeding. The assessee has purchased the shares of PS IT infrastructure & Services Limited, during the year

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arms Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions. The TPO, in his order passed dated 22.1.2015,made no adverse inference with respect to ALP of all other international transactions except that relating to the sale of finished goods to AE. 8. The assessee had benchmarked the said international transaction using Cost Plus Method

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arms Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions. The TPO, in his order passed dated 22.1.2015,made no adverse inference with respect to ALP of all other international transactions except that relating to the sale of finished goods to AE. 8. The assessee had benchmarked the said international transaction using Cost Plus Method

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arms Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions. The TPO, in his order passed dated 22.1.2015,made no adverse inference with respect to ALP of all other international transactions except that relating to the sale of finished goods to AE. 8. The assessee had benchmarked the said international transaction using Cost Plus Method

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

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

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:

transfer pricing adjustment considering entity wide margins. 1.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO/TPO has erred in and learned DRP has further erred in rejecting cost plus method ('CPM') adopted by the Appellant and selecting Transactional Net Margin Method ('TNMM') as the most appropriate method to determine

KARANBHAI BHARATBHAI GANGDEV,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

10. Without prejudice, no adequate, sufficient and reasonable opportunity has been provided by the Ld. Valuation officer. The assessment needs annulment. 11. The appellant craves leave to add/alter/amend and/or substitute any or all ground of appeal before the actual hearing takes place. 2. The assessee has raised as many as 11 grounds of appeal but the effective issue raised

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

35,481 Ν.Α. 14,46,11,771 Ν.Α. 7,12,88,777 Gross profit 10,30,67,450 Ν.Α. 6,06,72,651 Ν.Α. 48,11,266 GP ratio 33.46% 41.96% 6.75% The Rudrapur unit showed net profit of Rs. 3,32,20,406/- and claimed deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act of Rs.2

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

transfer pricing officer, in the subsequent assessment years, in the assessee`s case, having same facts and circumstances, and no addition were made in the hands of the assessee. Besides, with help of 22 documentary evidences, the assessee has demonstrated, before the assessing officer that sale by Rajkot unit, is on arm's length price, hence, no addition should

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

35,481 Ν.Α. 14,46,11,771 Ν.Α. 7,12,88,777 Gross profit 10,30,67,450 Ν.Α. 6,06,72,651 Ν.Α. 48,11,266 GP ratio 33.46% 41.96% 6.75% The Rudrapur unit showed net profit of Rs. 3,32,20,406/- and claimed deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act of Rs.2

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

35,481 Ν.Α. 14,46,11,771 Ν.Α. 7,12,88,777 Gross profit 10,30,67,450 Ν.Α. 6,06,72,651 Ν.Α. 48,11,266 GP ratio 33.46% 41.96% 6.75% The Rudrapur unit showed net profit of Rs. 3,32,20,406/- and claimed deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act of Rs.2

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

35,481 Ν.Α. 14,46,11,771 Ν.Α. 7,12,88,777 Gross profit 10,30,67,450 Ν.Α. 6,06,72,651 Ν.Α. 48,11,266 GP ratio 33.46% 41.96% 6.75% The Rudrapur unit showed net profit of Rs. 3,32,20,406/- and claimed deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act of Rs.2

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:

10(5A) of Act of a certain amount received by the assessee-firm as compensation on the termination of its managing agency. (iii) CIT v. Mogul Line Ltd. (1963)46 ITR 590,600(Bom) The issue in the cited case was with regard to an amount debited to foreign exchange suspense account. (iv) State Bank of India

BHIKHALAL PRAHALADRAI AGARWAL HUF,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.779&780/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal- Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Huf, Gandhidham Circle C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St It Office, Plot No. 32, Sector No. 3, Near Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Iffco Colony, Gandhidham Opp. Rajkumar College Rajkot Gandhidham - 370201 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabha4638R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025

price of the company Vax Housing Finance Corporation Limited is reproduced as under (downloaded from moneycontrol.com…..” ITA Nos.779&780/RJT/2024/AYs.2011-12&2016-17 Bhikhalal Prahladrai Agarwal-HUF 4. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer issued notice to the assessee to explain the above transactions with documentary evidences. However, the assessee has not submitted any reply before the assessing officer. Therefore

BHIKHALAL PRAHLADRAI AGARWAL HUF,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.779&780/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal- Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Huf, Gandhidham Circle C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St It Office, Plot No. 32, Sector No. 3, Near Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Iffco Colony, Gandhidham Opp. Rajkumar College Rajkot Gandhidham - 370201 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabha4638R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025

price of the company Vax Housing Finance Corporation Limited is reproduced as under (downloaded from moneycontrol.com…..” ITA Nos.779&780/RJT/2024/AYs.2011-12&2016-17 Bhikhalal Prahladrai Agarwal-HUF 4. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer issued notice to the assessee to explain the above transactions with documentary evidences. However, the assessee has not submitted any reply before the assessing officer. Therefore

M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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