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

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

section 80-IC of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer asked the assessee, to submit the justification of the deduction claimed 80-IC of the Act, to the tune of Rs.2,88,50,633/-.\n15. In response to the notice of the assessing officer, the assessee submitted its reply before the assessing officer, with documentary evidences

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

section 80-IC of the Act. During the assessment\nproceedings, the assessing officer asked the assessee, to submit the justification\nof the deduction claimed 80-IC of the Act, to the tune of Rs.2,88,50,633/-.\n15.\nIn response to the notice of the assessing officer, the assessee submitted\nits reply before the assessing officer, with documentary evidences

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

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

section 80-IC of the Act. During the assessment\nproceedings, the assessing officer asked the assessee, to submit the justification\nof the deduction claimed 80-IC of the Act, to the tune of Rs.2,88,50,633/-.\n15.\nIn response to the notice of the assessing officer, the assessee submitted\nits reply before the assessing officer, with documentary evidences

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

section 80-IC of the Act. During the assessment\nproceedings, the assessing officer asked the assessee, to submit the justification\nof the deduction claimed 80-IC of the Act, to the tune of Rs.2,88,50,633/-.\n15. In response to the notice of the assessing officer, the assessee submitted\nits reply before the assessing officer, with documentary evidences

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

section 80-IC of the Act. During the assessment\nproceedings, the assessing officer asked the assessee, to submit the justification\nof the deduction claimed 80-IC of the Act, to the tune of Rs.2,88,50,633/-.\n15. In response to the notice of the assessing officer, the assessee submitted\nits reply before the assessing officer, with documentary evidences

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

section 80-IC of the Act. During the assessment\nproceedings, the assessing officer asked the assessee, to submit the justification\nof the deduction claimed 80-IC of the Act, to the tune of Rs.2,88,50,633/-.\n15. In response to the notice of the assessing officer, the assessee submitted\nits reply before the assessing officer, with documentary evidences

M/S. KANDLA ENERGY AND CHEMICALS LTD.,VILLAGE DEVALIYA, TAL. ANJAR(KUTCH) vs. ADD. CIT, GANDHIDHAM RANGE,, GANDHIDHAM(KUTCH)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

43,24,000/-. During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee company had entered into certain specified domestic transactions whose value exceeded Rs. 5 Crores with related party u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act and also Chartered Accountant’s report u/s. 92E of the Act on international/domestic transactions. Therefore the case was referred to Transfer Pricing Officer

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2011-12 Shri Rajkot District Cooperative Vs. Pr.Cit, Rajkot-1 Bank Ltd. Rajkot. ‘Jilla Bank Bhavan’, Kasturba Road Opp: Chaudhari High School Rajkot. Pan : Aaaar 0564 K 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/11/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/02/2023

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

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:

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may bej shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; Page

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)

price. As per IT Act, any purchase in cash above Rs. 20,000 (now 10,000) is not permitted. Buyers across India deposit the cash purchase- amount into the bank-account of self-styled Angadiya/shroff, who remitted cash to seller, after deducting commission. In certain instances, such Bank-accounts were also used for layering and delayering of funds

THE ACIT.,GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S. WOCO TECH POLYMERE KANDLA LTD.,, KANDLA, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2012-13. I.T.A No. 162/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 . Page No 2 ACIT Vs. M/s. Woco Tech Polymere Kandla Ltd. 2. The solitary ground raised by the Revenue reads as under

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

price declared by the assessee in the return of income. Karanbhai Bharatbhai Gangdev vs. ITO Asst.Year – 2008-09 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and engaged in the activity of job work of Marble cutting and Kota Stone. The assessee in the year under consideration claimed to have sold its factory

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

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 and on the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) ought to\nhave upheld the order

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

THE DEPUTY COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, RAJKOT vs. M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, 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

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD.,, 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

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

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

43) premises were covered, out of which 32 premises were covered under section 132 of the Income Tax Act 1961 and the other 11 premises were covered u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act 1961. The premises covered were a mix of residential and business premises of their related entities, their family members, key associates and employees. RK group