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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

section 37 and the disallowance thereof results into Department taxing unreal and wrong amount of income. 13. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the lower authorities have overlooked the claim in the return of income filed for the carried forwards of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation as assessed in the regular

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

section 37 and the disallowance thereof results into Department taxing unreal and wrong amount of income. 13. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the lower authorities have overlooked the claim in the return of income filed for the carried forwards of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation as assessed in the regular

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

section 37 and the disallowance thereof results into Department taxing unreal and wrong amount of income. 13. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the lower authorities have overlooked the claim in the return of income filed for the carried forwards of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation as assessed in the regular

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

section 37 and the disallowance thereof results into Department taxing unreal and wrong amount of income. 13. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the lower authorities have overlooked the claim in the return of income filed for the carried forwards of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation as assessed in the regular

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

section 37 and the disallowance thereof results into Department taxing unreal and wrong amount of income. 13. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the lower authorities have overlooked the claim in the return of income filed for the carried forwards of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation as assessed in the regular

HAMILTON HOUSEWARES PRIVATE LIMITED,DAMAN & DIU vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.163/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) Hamilton Houseware Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit, Valsad. Plot No.49/50, Danydyog Industrial Estate, Piparia 396230, Dadra & Nagar Haveli. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd1683Q

disallow of Rs.9,92,19,057/- by invoking the provisions of section 35(2AB) of the I.T. Act and added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration. 4. In view of the above, it is clear that the AO has passed the assessment order without carrying proper verification. Therefore, the assessment made

DCIT., CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT vs. SHREE MADHI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,, DIST. SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 37 of the Act. The Assessing Officer accordingly made disallowance of Rs.147.21 crores being the amount paid over and above the SMP. On further appeal, before the Tribunal the order of Assessing Officer was confirmed. However, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to recomputed the Fair and Remunerative Price (‘FRP’ for short) on certain formula

SHREE MADHI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,DIST. SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 37 of the Act. The Assessing Officer accordingly made disallowance of Rs.147.21 crores being the amount paid over and above the SMP. On further appeal, before the Tribunal the order of Assessing Officer was confirmed. However, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to recomputed the Fair and Remunerative Price (‘FRP’ for short) on certain formula

SHREE MADHI VIBHAG SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD,BARDOLI vs. ITO, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 37 of the Act. The Assessing Officer accordingly made disallowance of Rs.147.21 crores being the amount paid over and above the SMP. On further appeal, before the Tribunal the order of Assessing Officer was confirmed. However, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to recomputed the Fair and Remunerative Price (‘FRP’ for short) on certain formula

ITO, WARD-1, BARDOLI, BARDOLI vs. SHREE MAHUVA PRADESH SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD, BARDOLLI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Income Tax Officer, Shree Mahuva Pradesh Ward-1, Bardoli, 2Nd Floor, Sahakari Khand Udyog Vs Bsnl Building, Opp. Jalaram Mandli Ltd., At P.O. Sugar Mandir, Station Road, Factory, Bamania, Tal- Bardoli-394601 Mahuva, Dist. Surat Pan : Aaaas 4731 M Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

5A of control order,1966 3 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the Rs.8,30,81,920/- disallowance of Rs.24,43,56,633/- mad in the assessment order on account of non business expenditure and transfer of profits by payment of sugarcane purchase which is ought

SHREE MAHUVA PRADESH SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 37 and the disallowance thereof results into Department taxing unreal and wrong amount of income. 7 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the C.I.T.(Appeals) failed to As per Sr. No. 1 above. appreciate that on identical facts, in the past in all the assessment years, such price was allowed

SHREE MAHUVA PRADESH SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 37 and the disallowance thereof results into Department taxing unreal and wrong amount of income. 7 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the C.I.T.(Appeals) failed to As per Sr. No. 1 above. appreciate that on identical facts, in the past in all the assessment years, such price was allowed

ITO, WARD-1, BARDOLI vs. SHREE MAHUVA PRADESH SAHAKARI KHAND UDHYOG MANDLI LTD, BARDOLI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 37 and the disallowance thereof results into Department taxing unreal and wrong amount of income. 7 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the C.I.T.(Appeals) failed to As per Sr. No. 1 above. appreciate that on identical facts, in the past in all the assessment years, such price was allowed

SHREE MAHUVA PRADESH SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 37 and the disallowance thereof results into Department taxing unreal and wrong amount of income. 7 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the C.I.T.(Appeals) failed to As per Sr. No. 1 above. appreciate that on identical facts, in the past in all the assessment years, such price was allowed

ITO, WARD-1, BARDOLI vs. SHREE MAHUVA PRADESH SAHAKARI KHAND UDHYOG MANDLI LTD, BARDOLI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 37 and the disallowance thereof results into Department taxing unreal and wrong amount of income. 7 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the C.I.T.(Appeals) failed to As per Sr. No. 1 above. appreciate that on identical facts, in the past in all the assessment years, such price was allowed

ITO, WARD-1, BARDOLI vs. SHREE MAHUVA PRADESH SAHAKARI KHAND UDHYOG MANDLI LTD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 37 and the disallowance thereof results into Department taxing unreal and wrong amount of income. 7 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the C.I.T.(Appeals) failed to As per Sr. No. 1 above. appreciate that on identical facts, in the past in all the assessment years, such price was allowed

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT vs. SHREE SAYAN VIBHAG SAHAKARI KHAND UDHYOG MANDLI LTD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 37 and the disallowance thereof results into Department taxing unreal and wrong amount of income. 7 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the C.I.T.(Appeals) failed As per Sr. No. 1 above. to appreciate that on identical facts, in the past in all the assessment years, such price was allowed

SHREE SAYAN VIBHAG SAHAKARI KHAND UDHYOG MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 37 and the disallowance thereof results into Department taxing unreal and wrong amount of income. 7 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the C.I.T.(Appeals) failed As per Sr. No. 1 above. to appreciate that on identical facts, in the past in all the assessment years, such price was allowed