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

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

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

depreciation on intangible assets purchased by the assessee company was discussed and adjudicated in favour of assessee. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the present appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, a copy of which was also placed before the Bench. 2. Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the authorities below

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.

9 Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd. Now Bayer Vapi Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT – R- Vapi I.T.A.No.2886/AHD/2010 & 794/AHD/2014 & 1769/AHD/2016/A.Y. 2006-07 , 2009-10 & 2011-2 transaction with AE’s which is not in consonance with Rule10B and Rule10E. The Ld. CIT (DR) by way of example in para (5) of his written submissions mentioned that if the assessee opts

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

depreciation claimed of Rs.1,88,45,949/- on above intangible assets was disallowed and added back to total income which was also confirmed by the DRP. 5. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that similar ground was allowed in favour of the assessee the by this Tribunal

THE ITO, WARD-2(2),, SURAT vs. M/S. PRESIDENCY EXPORTS,, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.1546/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Presidency Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, B-22, Basement, Rushabh Textile Ward-2(2), Surat. Tower, Ring Road, Surat – 395 002. [Pan: Aadfp 6602 L] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.2037/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer, Vs Presidency Exports, Ward-2(2), Surat. . B-22, Basement, Rushabh Textile Tower, Ring Road, Surat – 395 002. [Pan: Aadfp 6602 L] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Suresh K.Kabra – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri B.P.K.Panda –Sr.Dr

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee has purchased finished cloth amounting to Rs.32,99,204/- from its sister concern M/s. Gurera Textiles Pvt. Ltd., admittedly which is a related person u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, during the course

M/S. PRESIDENCY EXPORTS,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.1546/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Presidency Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, B-22, Basement, Rushabh Textile Ward-2(2), Surat. Tower, Ring Road, Surat – 395 002. [Pan: Aadfp 6602 L] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.2037/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer, Vs Presidency Exports, Ward-2(2), Surat. . B-22, Basement, Rushabh Textile Tower, Ring Road, Surat – 395 002. [Pan: Aadfp 6602 L] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Suresh K.Kabra – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri B.P.K.Panda –Sr.Dr

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee has purchased finished cloth amounting to Rs.32,99,204/- from its sister concern M/s. Gurera Textiles Pvt. Ltd., admittedly which is a related person u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, during the course

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. M/S. J K PAPER LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

40a(i) of the IT Act without appreciating the provisions of the Act as also the CBDT Cir No.7 dated,22.10.2009? ITA 156/SRT/2020 DCIT Vs M/s JK Paper & 2 Ors appeals 10. Whether on the facts and circumstances of cases and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.6,36,89,244/-made

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J K PAPER LTD, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

40a(i) of the IT Act without appreciating the provisions of the Act as also the CBDT Cir No.7 dated,22.10.2009? ITA 156/SRT/2020 DCIT Vs M/s JK Paper & 2 Ors appeals 10. Whether on the facts and circumstances of cases and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.6,36,89,244/-made

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J K PAPER LTD, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

40a(i) of the IT Act without appreciating the provisions of the Act as also the CBDT Cir No.7 dated,22.10.2009? ITA 156/SRT/2020 DCIT Vs M/s JK Paper & 2 Ors appeals 10. Whether on the facts and circumstances of cases and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.6,36,89,244/-made

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. JIVRAJ TEA COMPANY,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.2343/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Jivraj Tea Company, Of Income Tax, 5/258-259, Jivraj Chambers, Circle – 2(3), Surat. Ruwala Tekra, Bhagal, Surat. [Pan: Aacfj 2236 R] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Prasoon Kabra – Cit-Dr

40A(2)(b) of the Act without charging any interest out of interest bearing fund since the assessee was not having any interest free fund at all and the part of the interest bearing funds have been utilized for making loan to the partners of related party who in turn have invested for personal benefits.” Ground No.1 relates to addition

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

9. Aggrieved by disallowance of interest expenses and disallowance of under-valuation closing stock and difference in valuation of MPB and Quinalphos, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submission which are recorded by Ld. CIT(A) on different pages. With regard to disallowance of interest expenses, the assessee stated

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

9. Aggrieved by disallowance of interest expenses and disallowance of under-valuation closing stock and difference in valuation of MPB and Quinalphos, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submission which are recorded by Ld. CIT(A) on different pages. With regard to disallowance of interest expenses, the assessee stated

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

9. Aggrieved by disallowance of interest expenses and disallowance of under-valuation closing stock and difference in valuation of MPB and Quinalphos, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submission which are recorded by Ld. CIT(A) on different pages. With regard to disallowance of interest expenses, the assessee stated

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

depreciation, while Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate adjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative question of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business expenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to 14 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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

depreciation, while Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate adjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative question of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business expenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to 14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

depreciation, while Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate adjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative question of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business expenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to 14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

depreciation, while Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate adjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative question of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business expenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to 14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner