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

section 80-IC mainly on following basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity at Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing and Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to eligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market price

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

section 80-IC mainly on\nfollowing basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity\nat Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing\nand Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to\neligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market price

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 mainly on\nfollowing basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity\nat Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing\nand Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to\neligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market price

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

section 80-IC mainly on\nfollowing basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity\nat Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing\nand Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to\neligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market price

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

section 80-IC mainly on\nfollowing basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity\nat Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing\nand Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to\neligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market price

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

section 80-IC mainly on\nfollowing basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity\nat Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing\nand Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to\neligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market price

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

section 80-IC mainly on\nfollowing basis viz: (1) Rudrapur Unit is not an independent Unit, (2) Activity\nat Rudrapur Unit would not fall within the ambit of definition of manufacturing\nand Production and (3) Transfer of products from non-eligible unit at Rajkot to\neligible unit at Rudrapur Unit is not at market price

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BHAVANI INDUSTRIES,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 108/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 A.C.I.T., M/S Bhavani Industries, Circle-2(1), Vs. C/1-B, 236/3, Gidc, Rajkot. Aji Industrial Estate, Rajkot.

80-IC the undertaking or enterprises is to fulfil the following conditions i.e. (i) it is not formed by splitting up or the reconstruction of the business already in existence; (ii) it is not formed by transfer to a new business or machinery or plant previously used for any purpose. It is not the Case of the Department that

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

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

M/S. JAYSHRI EXPORTS (INDIA) LTD.,JETPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं /Ita No. 56/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2004-05 बनाम/ M/S. Jayshri Exports (India) The Deputy Commissioner Of Dhoraji Road, Navagadh, Income-Tax Circle-1, Rajkot Vs Jetpur, Gujarat - 360370 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabfj8267B (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

transfer price less face value of DEPB) on which the assessee is not entitled to the deduction u/s.80HHC as per the amended Page 4 of 9 M/s. Jayshri Exports (India) law. The assessee, before learned CIT (A), in his written submissions, has further stated that the assessee has filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat

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

RAJSHANTI METALS PVT. LTD.,,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX,, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 176/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 Rajshanti Metals Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of B-42, Gidc, Vs. Income Tax, Shankar Tekri, Jamnagar. Jamnagar.

80 IA (1) of the Act amounting to ₹ 30,06,181/- was not included in the gross total income and therefore it was not eligible for the deduction in respect of such income. But the same was allowed by the AO during the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act without carrying out necessary verification. iv. There were

SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2, RAJKOT

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer-2, Ahmedabad and therefore the time limitation for completion of scrutiny was extended. Assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA of the Act vide order dated 24/12/2018 and the total income was determined at Rs.2,62,08,060/- by making addition of Rs.1,80,000/- on account of deemed rent. Since the assessee

THE ITO, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM vs. SHRI JUNEJA CHANDRAKALA MOHINDER,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.995/Rjt/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Ito, Smt Juneja Chandrakala Ward-1, Mohinder, Vs. Gandhidham, 31, Tanker Owner Association Building, N.H. Way, Gandhidham-Kutch. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.930/Rjt/2010 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.453/Rjt/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Smt. Chandrakala M. Juneja, Ito, 31, Taker, Owners Asso. Ward-1, Vs. Bldg. Gandhidham. Gandhidham. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

80,000/- is transfer from BOB and deposited. However, assessee failed to establish direct nexus between the deposits made in the bank account and her alleged claim regarding withdrawal from GMCB (entry to entry). (3) The assessee has claim that Rs.5,29,999.87 is represents freight received from Agrawal Auto Mobiles. However, on verification of TDS Certificate issued by Agrawal

SMT. CHANDRAKALA M. JUNEJA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.995/Rjt/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Ito, Smt Juneja Chandrakala Ward-1, Mohinder, Vs. Gandhidham, 31, Tanker Owner Association Building, N.H. Way, Gandhidham-Kutch. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.930/Rjt/2010 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.453/Rjt/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Smt. Chandrakala M. Juneja, Ito, 31, Taker, Owners Asso. Ward-1, Vs. Bldg. Gandhidham. Gandhidham. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

80,000/- is transfer from BOB and deposited. However, assessee failed to establish direct nexus between the deposits made in the bank account and her alleged claim regarding withdrawal from GMCB (entry to entry). (3) The assessee has claim that Rs.5,29,999.87 is represents freight received from Agrawal Auto Mobiles. However, on verification of TDS Certificate issued by Agrawal

SMT. JUNEJA CHANDRAKALA MOHINDERKUMAR,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.995/Rjt/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Ito, Smt Juneja Chandrakala Ward-1, Mohinder, Vs. Gandhidham, 31, Tanker Owner Association Building, N.H. Way, Gandhidham-Kutch. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.930/Rjt/2010 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.453/Rjt/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Smt. Chandrakala M. Juneja, Ito, 31, Taker, Owners Asso. Ward-1, Vs. Bldg. Gandhidham. Gandhidham. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

80,000/- is transfer from BOB and deposited. However, assessee failed to establish direct nexus between the deposits made in the bank account and her alleged claim regarding withdrawal from GMCB (entry to entry). (3) The assessee has claim that Rs.5,29,999.87 is represents freight received from Agrawal Auto Mobiles. However, on verification of TDS Certificate issued by Agrawal

SHRI AJAYBHAI ISHWARLAL GOGIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (2) (5), RAJKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

transfer of property referred to above. The assessee’s contention was that he did not get any money from the auction price and that the assessee’s right in property was extinguished on 05-01-2009 as soon as the property was taken over by the bank. This contention was rejected by the Assessing Officer in quantum proceeding and action