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:

13. The Ld. CIT-DR for the revenue also submitted that since the goods have been returned in the subsequent year, however, that does not mean that no transfer pricing adjustment should be made, in the current year under consideration, that is, in the current year, the transaction was existed in the books of accounts, therefore, transfer pricing adjustment needs

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

HANSA JITENDRA HARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hansa Jitendra Haria Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 2, Oswal Colony, Near Rajendra Income Tax Balkrindagan, Jamnagar, Gujarat Jamnagar 361005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahph4309L (Assessee) (Respondent)

2 of section 263 of the Act, the order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue if the order is passed without making inquiries or verification of the information available on record. In this case, the material and information was available with

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

price with customer inclusive of all other add-on services provided by him) in various impounded documents/data as well as averments made by sales employee in his statement, estimation of unaccounted receipts at Rs. 30.22 crores as well as total receipts at Rs. 118.31 crores from entire project, i.e., 509 flats is strongly objected. 15. It is also submitted that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SIX TWENTY REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

price with\ncustomer inclusive of all other add-on services provided by him) in various impounded\ndocuments/data as well as averments made by sales employee in his statement,\nestimation of unaccounted receipts at Rs.30.22 crores as well as total receipts at Rs.\n118.31 crores from entire project, i.e., 509 flats is strongly objected.\n\n15. It is also submitted that

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

13 of 35\nITA Nos.630 & 631 and 665/Rjt/2024\nDeepak Mohanlal Puruswani\n1. Reference is also drawn to the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of DCIT vs.\nPrarthana Construction Pvt Limited Tax Appeal No 79 of 2000 where it has been held\nthat the Revenue would not be justified in resting its case on the loose papers and\ndocuments

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT LTD,RAJOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

price with\ncustomer inclusive of all other add-on services provided by him) in various impounded\ndocuments/data as well as averments made by sales employee in his statement,\nestimation of unaccounted receipts at Rs.30.22 crores as well as total receipts at Rs.\n118.31 crores from entire project, i.e., 509 flats is strongly objected.\n\n15. It is also submitted that

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

13 & 2013-14) Bharatkumar Ishwarbhai Assistant Commissioner of Bhatiya Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Rajkot 205, Krishna Complex, Opp. Panchayat chowk, University Income Tax Officer, Ward– Vs. Road, Rajkot 1(1)(2), Rajkot-360 001 "थायी लेखा सं /.जी आइ आर सं /.PAN/GIR No.: AIRPB 2097 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. AR Respondent

BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, , RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

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

BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1,, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

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

BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1,, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

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

BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

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

THE DEPUTY COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.1,, RAJKOT vs. JAYESH HARAKHJI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result, all appeals filed by the different assessee's and Revenue\nare allowed for statistical purposes

H. Patel, are\nas follows:\n\"Ld. assessing officer erred in law as well as on facts in making and Ld. CITIA)\nerred in law as well as on facts in confirming-\n1. Presuming that the assessee is engaged in some ceramic business and not in\nmoney transferor (shroff/angadia) on commission basis by ignoring the\nfinding of the Director General