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

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) D.C.I.T. M/S J.K. Paper Ltd. Circle-1(1)(2), P.O. Central Pulp Mill, Vs. Surat. Fort Songadh, Surat. Pan : Aaact 6305 N Appellant Respondednt

4,45,50,780/- in his order dated 26.03.2018. 6. Aggrieved by the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submissions on each of the additions/disallowances, on which the penalty was levied by the Assessing officer. On the disallowance

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. BARDOLI VIBHAG GRAM VIKAS CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 80P(4) of the Act. The CIT(A) relied upon the decisions of ITAT in appellant’s own case for AY 2012-13. He also referred to the following decisions, viz. (i) M/s Veer Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO (in ITA No.2787/Del/2018), (ii) Surat District Milk Producers Union Ltd. (Surat – Trib.) and (iii) PCIT vs. Totagars

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. BARDOLI VIBHAG GRAM VIKAS CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 80P(4) of the Act. The CIT(A) relied upon the decisions of ITAT in appellant’s own case for AY 2012-13. He also referred to the following decisions, viz. (i) M/s Veer Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO (in ITA No.2787/Del/2018), (ii) Surat District Milk Producers Union Ltd. (Surat – Trib.) and (iii) PCIT vs. Totagars

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. BARDOLI VIBHAG GRAM VIKAS CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 80P(4) of the Act. The CIT(A) relied upon the decisions of ITAT in appellant’s own case for AY 2012-13. He also referred to the following decisions, viz. (i) M/s Veer Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO (in ITA No.2787/Del/2018), (ii) Surat District Milk Producers Union Ltd. (Surat – Trib.) and (iii) PCIT vs. Totagars

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1 )(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. BARDOLI VIBHAG GRAM VIKAS CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 80P(4) of the Act. The CIT(A) relied upon the decisions of ITAT in appellant’s own case for AY 2012-13. He also referred to the following decisions, viz. (i) M/s Veer Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO (in ITA No.2787/Del/2018), (ii) Surat District Milk Producers Union Ltd. (Surat – Trib.) and (iii) PCIT vs. Totagars

M/S. MITSU PRIVATE LIMITED,,VAPI vs. THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

disallowance made under section 40A(2)(b) of Rs.5,912 without appreciating that payment made to related party for purchase of material was excessive as compared to other party. 150. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the CIT (A) has deleted this ground by observing that the assessee has purchased

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. MITSU LIMITED,, DAMAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

disallowance made under section 40A(2)(b) of Rs.5,912 without appreciating that payment made to related party for purchase of material was excessive as compared to other party. 150. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the CIT (A) has deleted this ground by observing that the assessee has purchased

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. THE SURAT VANKAR SAHKARI SANGH LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.77/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Dcit, Vs. The Surat Vankar Sahkari Sangh Circle – 2(1)(1), Limited, Surat Opp – Reshamwala Market, Ring Road, Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaat3159L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act and after relying on the decision in case of Totagars’ Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. vs. ITO, Karnataka, (2010) 188 Taxman 288 (SC) and Totagars’ Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. vs. PCIT, (2017) 83 taxmann.com 143 (Karnataka), SBI vs. CIT, (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj.), Tumkur Merchants Souhardha Credit Co-operative

THE PURSOTTAM FARMERS CO.OP. COTTON GINNING & PRESSING SOCIETY LTD.,SURAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRACLE-2(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.499/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Dcit, Vs. The Pursottam Farmers Co-Op. Circle – 2(1)(1), Cotton Grnning & Pressing Soc. Surat Ltd., Jahangirpura Gin., Jahangirpura, Rander – 395009, "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaat3000A (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.523/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) The Pursottam Farmers Co-Op. Vs. Dcit, Cotton Grnning & Pressing Soc. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Jahangirpura Gin., Jahangirpura, Surat Rander – 395009, "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaat3000A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Akshay M. Modi, Ca Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/08/2025

4) of section 80P of the Act. The AO has discussed provisions of section 80P of the Act and after relying on the decision in case of Totagars’ Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. vs. ITO, Karnataka (2010) 188 Taxman 288 (SC) and Totagars’ Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. vs. PCIT, (2017) 83 taxmann.com 143 (Karnataka

DY. COMMISSONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. THE PURSOTTAM FARMERS CO OP COTTON GRNNING AND PRESSING SOCIETY LTD, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.499/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Dcit, Vs. The Pursottam Farmers Co-Op. Circle – 2(1)(1), Cotton Grnning & Pressing Soc. Surat Ltd., Jahangirpura Gin., Jahangirpura, Rander – 395009, "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaat3000A (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.523/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) The Pursottam Farmers Co-Op. Vs. Dcit, Cotton Grnning & Pressing Soc. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Jahangirpura Gin., Jahangirpura, Surat Rander – 395009, "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaat3000A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Akshay M. Modi, Ca Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/08/2025

4) of section 80P of the Act. The AO has discussed provisions of section 80P of the Act and after relying on the decision in case of Totagars’ Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. vs. ITO, Karnataka (2010) 188 Taxman 288 (SC) and Totagars’ Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. vs. PCIT, (2017) 83 taxmann.com 143 (Karnataka

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

172 taxmann.com 467\n(Guj.), dated 11.02.2025, affirming the Tribunal is entirely misplaced and\nfact-specific. He pointed out that in Narmada Khand (supra), the Tribunal\nhad recorded specific findings of fact that the additional cane price had\nbeen approved by the Managing Committee which included Government\nrepresentatives under the Co-operative law, and that such price was, on\nfacts

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)

section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide order dated 12.03.2021 and 28.09.2020 respectively. 2. Since the issues involved in both these appeals are common and identical except variance of amounts, therefore, both the appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience

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)

section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide order dated 12.03.2021 and 28.09.2020 respectively. 2. Since the issues involved in both these appeals are common and identical except variance of amounts, therefore, both the appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience

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

172 taxmann.com 467\n(Guj.), dated 11.02.2025, affirming the Tribunal is entirely misplaced and\nfact-specific. He pointed out that in Narmada Khand (supra), the Tribunal\nhad recorded specific findings of fact that the additional cane price had\nbeen approved by the Managing Committee which included Government\nrepresentatives under the Co-operative law, and that such price was, on\nfacts

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

172 taxmann.com 467\n(Guj.), dated 11.02.2025, affirming the Tribunal is entirely misplaced and\nfact-specific. He pointed out that in Narmada Khand (supra), the Tribunal\nhad recorded specific findings of fact that the additional cane price had\nbeen approved by the Managing Committee which included Government\nrepresentatives under the Co-operative law, and that such price was, on\nfacts

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

172 taxmann.com 467\n(Guj.), dated 11.02.2025, affirming the Tribunal is entirely misplaced and\nfact-specific. He pointed out that in Narmada Khand (supra), the Tribunal\nhad recorded specific findings of fact that the additional cane price had\nbeen approved by the Managing Committee which included Government\nrepresentatives under the Co-operative law, and that such price was, on\nfacts

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

172 taxmann.com 467\n(Guj.), dated 11.02.2025, affirming the Tribunal is entirely misplaced and\nfact-specific. He pointed out that in Narmada Khand (supra), the Tribunal\nhad recorded specific findings of fact that the additional cane price had\nbeen approved by the Managing Committee which included Government\nrepresentatives under the Co-operative law, and that such price was, on\nfacts

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

172 taxmann.com 467\n(Guj.), dated 11.02.2025, affirming the Tribunal is entirely misplaced and\nfact-specific. He pointed out that in Narmada Khand (supra), the Tribunal\nhad recorded specific findings of fact that the additional cane price had\nbeen approved by the Managing Committee which included Government\nrepresentatives under the Co-operative law, and that such price was, on\nfacts

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

172 taxmann.com 467\n(Guj.), dated 11.02.2025, affirming the Tribunal is entirely misplaced and\nfact-specific. He pointed out that in Narmada Khand (supra), the Tribunal\nhad recorded specific findings of fact that the additional cane price had\nbeen approved by the Managing Committee which included Government\nrepresentatives under the Co-operative law, and that such price was, on\nfacts