SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.,,GANDEVI vs. ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

charitable trust.\n(vi) That the appellant could not prove that a higher price was paid by\nit to the farmers on account of higher yield or some other factors.\nBesides nowhere it has been claimed that at the time of supply of\nsugarcane by the farmers to the appellant, any agreement or contract\nfor payment of price higher than

SAHADARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

charitable trust.\n(vi) That the appellant could not prove that a higher price was paid by\nit to the farmers on account of higher yield or some other factors.\nBesides nowhere it has been claimed that at the time of supply of\nsugarcane by the farmers to the appellant, any agreement or contract\nfor payment of price higher than

SAHAKARI KHAND UDUOG MANDAL LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

charitable trust.\n(vi) That the appellant could not prove that a higher price was paid by\nit to the farmers on account of higher yield or some other factors.\nBesides nowhere it has been claimed that at the time of supply of\nsugarcane by the farmers to the appellant, any agreement or contract\nfor payment of price higher than

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE, NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG, KAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD., NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

charitable trust.\n(vi) That the appellant could not prove that a higher price was paid by\nit to the farmers on account of higher yield or some other factors.\nBesides nowhere it has been claimed that at the time of supply of\nsugarcane by the farmers to the appellant, any agreement or contract\nfor payment of price higher than

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE., NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD,, NAVASARI

charitable trust.\n(vi) That the appellant could not prove that a higher price was paid by\nit to the farmers on account of higher yield or some other factors.\nBesides nowhere it has been claimed that at the time of supply of\nsugarcane by the farmers to the appellant, any agreement or contract\nfor payment of price higher than

MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD,.,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, , NAVSARI

charitable trust.\n(vi) That the appellant could not prove that a higher price was paid by\nit to the farmers on account of higher yield or some other factors.\nBesides nowhere it has been claimed that at the time of supply of\nsugarcane by the farmers to the appellant, any agreement or contract\nfor payment of price higher than

SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD.,BARDOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

charitable trust.\n(vi) That the appellant could not prove that a higher price was paid by\nit to the farmers on account of higher yield or some other factors.\nBesides nowhere it has been claimed that at the time of supply of\nsugarcane by the farmers to the appellant, any agreement or contract\n25\nfor payment of price higher

SANJAYKUMAR TIKAMCHAND BUCHA,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T. R Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.647/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) Shri Sanjaykumar Tikamchand Bucha, Vs. Acit, 521, Goodluck Market, Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Surat, Gujarat - 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abqpb9320F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit -Dr Date Of Hearing 30/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/08/2025

Charitable Trust, (2022) 144 taxmann.com 54 (Mad.), (iii) Kantilal C. Shah vs. ACIT, (2011) 14 taxmann.com 108 (Ahd – Trib.), (iv) PCIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setia, (2017) 81 taxmann.com 476 (Delhi), (v) Thiru S. Shyam Kumar vs. ACIT, (2018) 99 taxmann.com 39 (Mad.) and (vi) Ravindra Kumar Verma vs. CIT, (2013) 30 taxmann.com 367 (All.). 4.1 With regard to the claim