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

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

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.

40A(2)(b). The assessee has acquired the Lmidachloropid business of Mitsu Limited as slump sale basis for a total consideration of Rs.27.50 crores as a going concern basis. M/s. Mitsu Industries Ltd. has been carrying on its business from last 15 years and Lmidachloropid was one of the pesticides for which necessary process, technical knowhow, knowledge and idea

DIYA FABRICS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, while appeal of the assessee is allowed, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Diya Fabrics, Vs. The Ito, 1418, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat. Surat – 395002. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfd3658A

68. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.1,20,442/- on account of disallowed expenditure u/s. 40A(3). 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well

M/S. UNITED SALT WORKS,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.208/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) M/S United Salt Works Income Tax Officer, 9, Pruthvi Nagar, 1St Floor, Ward-1(3), 2Nd Floor, Above Vs Station Road, Bharuch- Bank Of Baroda Building, 392001 Station Road, Bharuch- Pan : Aaafu 4725 A 392001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

68,050/- was also made on 27.03.2014 in cash in violation of provision of section 40A(3). Thus, it was required to be added to the total income of assessee. The Assessing Officer further recorded that except the month of 5 M/s United Salt Works March, 2014, rest of the year payments paid were made through account payee cheque

M/S. K.N. DIAMOND,,BILIMORA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1788/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S K.N.Diamond, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Soniwad, Bilimora, Of Income Tax, Navsari Navsari – 396 321. Circle, Navsari. [Pan: Aadfk 3167 H] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Parimalsinh Parmar – Advocate राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

40A(2) of the Act, unless the Assessing Officer brings on record Fair Market Value(FMV) on similar services. The Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) failed to bring on record any reasonable cases as to FMV on similar services. In support of his submissions, the Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions,  CIT vs. Sarjan Realities – [2014] 50 taxmann.com

SHRI TULSIBHAI BHAGWANBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Tulsibhai Bhagwanbhai The Dcit, Circle-3(3), Patel, Majura Gate, Surat. Vs. 9-10, Kasturba Nagar Society, Nr. Baroda Pristage, Varachha Road, Surat. Also At C/O Sh. Ashwin Parekh & Co 401-404, Rajhans Banista, Behind Ram Chowk Temple , Gdod Dhod Road, Suart E-Mail: Akparekh_1989@Yahoo.Co.In Pan : Abrpp 1239 Q Appellant Respondent

40A(2)(b) of Rs.11,24,900/- and under section 68 of the Act of Rs.1,70,000/-. The assessee

SUPREME AUTO,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh&Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1141/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम M/S. Supreme Auto, Principal Commissioner Of Vs. Bilimora Road, National Income-Tax- Valsad Highway No.8, Samroli, At Chikhli, Navsari - 396521. [Pan: Aamfs 3499 K] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Prasenjit Singh, Cit(D.R.) राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 22.10.2019 सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- Valsad [In Short “The Pr. Cit ”] Dated 22.03.2016 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Under Section 263 Of Income Tax Act,1961 ( In Short ‘The Act’).

40A(2)(b) of the Act. With regard to unsecured loan, it was submitted that these are old loan coming from last year, hence, no addition can be made during the year under consideration under section 68

DIVYABEN PRAFULCHANDRA PARMAR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT

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.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

2% of Rs.45,01,840/-) for bogus LTCG. However, in assessment order addition was made u/s 68 and u/s 69 of the Act, respectively. Further there was no show cause for charging of tax at 30% as per the mandate of section 115BBE of the Act. Thus, Assessing Officer has violated ITA No.73/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Divyaben Prafulchandra Parmar principal of natural

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

40A(2)(b). The assessee has acquired the Bayer Vapi Pvt. Ltd. Formerly Bilag Industries v. Addl. CIT – R- Vapi/I.T.A.No.2912/AHD/2015/A.Y. 10-11 5 Lmidachloropid business of Mitsu Limited as slump sale basis for a total consideration of Rs.27.50 crores as a going concern basis. M/s. Mitsu Industries Ltd. has been carrying on its business from last 15 years and Lmidachloropid

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

40A(2)(b). The assessee has acquired the Lmidachloropid business of Mitsu Limited as slump sale basis for a total consideration of Rs.27.50 crores as a going concern basis. M/s. Mitsu Industries Ltd. has been carrying on its business from last 15 years and Lmidachloropid was one of the pesticides for which necessary process, technical knowhow, knowledge and idea

SHREE SAI ALANG HOUSE,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.906/Srt/2024 (Ay 2022-23) (Physical Court Hearing) Shree Sai Alang House Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), 13-15, Khodal Chhaya Society, Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, बनाम Surat Kamrej Road, Opp. Majura Gate, Vs Shyamdham Mandir, Surat-395 001 Surat-394 185 [Pan : Abefs 8896 D] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.15,73,185/- on account of the payment made

SHRI NILESHKUMAR BHAGVANBHAI BODARA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(3),, SURAT

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

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 2776/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13

40A(3) of the Act. Accordingly, disallowance of purchases are restricted to 5% which comes to Rs.41,903/- and balance disallowance of purchases of Rs.7,96,164/- is deleted. Consequently, this ground of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 8. Ground No. 2 relates to confirming action of the AO in making disallowance of Rs.2,98,898/- being

SATYAM TEXTILE PARK,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

section 37, 40A(3), 40(a)(ia), 68 and other provisions of the Act. Thus, clause (a) of Explanation 2

SATYAM TEXTILE PARK,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

section 37, 40A(3), 40(a)(ia), 68 and other provisions of the Act. Thus, clause (a) of Explanation 2

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

40A(2) of the Act. However, we may point out that in the present case it is not a case of the AO that the impugned commission / additional remuneration has been excessively paid to the u/s.40A(2) of the Act, hence, benefit of these circulars is not available for the assessee in the present case. 43. Finally, on the basis

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

40A(2) of the Act. However, we may point out that in the present case it is not a case of the AO that the impugned commission / additional remuneration has been excessively paid to the u/s.40A(2) of the Act, hence, benefit of these circulars is not available for the assessee in the present case. 43. Finally, on the basis

VITRAG PRINTS,SURAT vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.338/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Vitrag Prints, Vs. The Acit (Osd), K-2619 To 2622, Millenium Ward -1(2)(5), Textile Market Ring Road, Surat. Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfv5612L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Jaykishan Goel, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By 22/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2023

40A(2)(b) reported in Audit Report and ITR and Large other expenses claimed in the Profit & Loss account. Thereafter notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 10.08.2016 and duly served upon the assessee firm on 27/08/2016. Subsequently a notice u/s 142(1) cum- questionnaire was issued on 02.06.2017 and this was too duly served upon the assessee’s firm