RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

section 40A(3A) of the Act, 1961. (disallowance in ground no.7 in ITA No.194/SRT/22 at Rs.38,000/- and Ground No.3 in ITA No.193/SRT/22 at Rs.11,88,236/- ) (iv) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 194/SRT/2022, and ground No. 2 raised by the assessee, in ITA No.193/SRT/2022, are as follows: “On the facts on the facts and circumstances

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, , VAPI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

section 40A(3A) of the Act, 1961. (disallowance in ground no.7 in ITA No.194/SRT/22 at Rs.38,000/- and Ground No.3 in ITA No.193/SRT/22 at Rs.11,88,236/- ) (iv) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 194/SRT/2022, and ground No. 2 raised by the assessee, in ITA No.193/SRT/2022, are as follows: “On the facts on the facts and circumstances

RAJAN BUDHISAGAR SINGH,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-4, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.13/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Rajan Budhisagar Singh The Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 506, Priti Complex, Ward – 4, Navsari Vs. Shital Park Society, Opp. Jalkamal Society, Navsari – 396445, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahkps9432M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Appellant By Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, Ca राज"कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke (Sr. Dr)With Shri Kevin Langaliya, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 06/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/11/2025

depreciation details, interest paid, repairing expenses and other relevant material by the issuance of notices u/s 142(1) of the Act. In response, the assessee furnished the information on various dates. On verification of the individual ledger extracts, following payments were made in cash exceeding Rs.10,000/-: (i) Tejpal Motors(P) Ltd. of Rs.22,958/-, (ii) Cleaners’ salary paid

M/S. BAYER VAPI PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.),VAPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.219/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Bayer Vapi Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of V (Formerly Known As Bilag Industries Pvt. Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi. S. Ltd.,), 306/3, Iind Phase, Gidc, Vapi – 396 195. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcb 2100 L (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gopala Krishnan - Ca Respondent By : Shri S.T.Bidari-Cit(Dr) & Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09/06/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To A.Y.2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Valsad Dated 29.01.2018 Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Ld.Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Dated 29.03.2016. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “01. The Order Of Assessment Is Contrary To The Facts & Prejudicial To The Assessee. 02. On Appreciation Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Additions Made By The Learned Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Are Contrary To Law & Based On Erroneous Understanding Of The Facts. 03. On Appreciation Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming

7,19,85,974. It was explained that the Mitsu industries are not a related party under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act and the assessee has acquired profit earning apparatus from Mitsu Industries Ltd. which cannot be based on book value of tangible assets debited in the books of seller. The assessee company has acquired international product registration

M/S. BAYER VAPI PRIVATE LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES P. LTD.),VAPI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P. Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No’S.2886/Ahd/2010, 794/Ahd/2014 & 1769/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12 बनाम M/S. Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd. , Addl. Cit Range- ( Now Known As M/S. Bayer Vapi Vs. Vapi, Range Vapi Private Limited) 306/3,Phase-Ii Shivam Commercial Complex Gidc-1, Vapi Gujarat National Highway No 8 Vapi Pan: Aabcb 2100 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri A. Gopalakrishnan Aiyer - Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri O. P. Singh Cit (D.R.) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 26.09.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: 1. The Above Captioned Three Appeals For The Assessment Year 2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12 By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Dated 28.07.2010 & Dated 15.01.2014 Respectively Under The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] On The Direction Of Drp By The Addl. Cit Range-Vapi Range Vapi (Herein After Referred As The Ao) & The Appeal For The Assessment Year 2011-12 By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) Dated 29.04.2016. Since The Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed As Under: It(Tp)A No.2886/Ahd/2010/A.Y. 2006-07/ By The Assessee: 2. Ground Nos.1 Is General In Nature & Do Not Require Adjudication.

section 40A (2) (b) is also not convincing because until the recent past, both companies had common promoters. Even in the year under assessment, few of the shareholders are common. Neither could the assessee company justified why it paid Rs.27.50 crores for what was essentially just land & building as per the books of Mitsu Ltd. Therefore, depreciation claimed of Rs.5

M/S. BAYER VAPI PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,),VAPI vs. THE ADDL.CIT., VAPI RANGE,, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P. Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2912/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम M/S. Bayer Vapi Private Limited) Addl. Cit Range- (Formerly M/S. Bilag Industries Vs. Vapi, Range Vapi Pvt. Ltd.), 306/3,Phase-Ii, Shivam Commercial Complex Gidc-1, Vapi Gujarat. National Highway No 8 Vapi Pan: Aabcb 2100 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 40A (2) (b) is also not convincing because until the recent past, both companies had common promoters. Even in the year under assessment, few of the shareholders are common. Neither could the assessee company justified why it paid Rs.27.50 crores for what was essentially just land & building as per the books of Mitsu Ltd. Therefore, depreciation claimed of Rs.1

ACIT,CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH vs. SHRI MOHMEDSADIK A SHAIKH, ANKALESHWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.682/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Mohmedsadik A. Shaikh, Bharuch. Prop. Of Earth Power, Behind Mona Complex, Rajpipla Chowkdi, Ankleshwar-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahzps5638N (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) Assessee By : Ms Kinjal V. Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Deependra Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A)-Vadodara-3/10033/2017-18, Dated 30.07.2018, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

40A(2)(b) will not apply to cases, where the assessee’s books of account have been rejected u/s 145(3) of the Act and without appreciating that factual aspects of the case did not warrant invoking the ITA.682/SRT/2019/AY.2014-15 Mohmedsadik A. Shaikh provision of section 144 of the Act. The A.O. on the basis of information and material available

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH vs. GUJARAT INSECTICIDES LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

7,964 Ltrs of wich 1,844 Ltrs are damaged of near expiry and therefore 1,844 Ltrs are valued at 5% of the cost and therefore, the average cost is Rs.227/- per Ltr. The value of saleable quantity is valued at Rs.225/- per Ltr. AXON is 5,056 Ltrs of which 941 Ltrs are damaged of near expiry

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH vs. GUJARAT INSECTICIDES LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

7,964 Ltrs of wich 1,844 Ltrs are damaged of near expiry and therefore 1,844 Ltrs are valued at 5% of the cost and therefore, the average cost is Rs.227/- per Ltr. The value of saleable quantity is valued at Rs.225/- per Ltr. AXON is 5,056 Ltrs of which 941 Ltrs are damaged of near expiry

GUJARAT INSECTICIDES LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

7,964 Ltrs of wich 1,844 Ltrs are damaged of near expiry and therefore 1,844 Ltrs are valued at 5% of the cost and therefore, the average cost is Rs.227/- per Ltr. The value of saleable quantity is valued at Rs.225/- per Ltr. AXON is 5,056 Ltrs of which 941 Ltrs are damaged of near expiry

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

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

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

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

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

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

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

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

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

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

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

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

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

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

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

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

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

GUJARAT MITRA PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.32 & 33/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Gujarat Mitra Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Ward No.10, Soni Faliya, Chowk Centralized Processing Center, Vs. Bazar, Surat-395003 Bangalore-560500 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg 2528 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ" /Respondent)

7. However, in case of employee’s contribution to PF and ESIC, the issue is covered against the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held as follows: “30 Analysis and Conclusions The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation