BILAKHIA HOLDING P LTD,VAPI vs. THE ACIT,VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr.Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A’S No.181 & 182/Srt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Bilakhia Holding P Ltd., Vs The Assistant Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, . Commissioner Of Income Chala, Surat – 394 520. Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi. [Pan: Aadcs 4420 J] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Gopalakrishnan Aiyer – Ar राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Usha Shrote – Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 19.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Memeber: 1. Captioned Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here In After Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of the Arm's length as per the provisions of section 92CA of the I.T.Act, 1961. Accordingly the order u/s 92CA(3) passed by the TPO dated 24.01.2013 has been received on 28.01.2013. In view of the same final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act was passed on 11.03.2013. The addition

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. ANTRIX DIAMOND EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, these three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.176 To 178/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-3, Vs. Antrix Diamond Exports Pvt. Ltd., Surat. 1006, Free Press Mark, Raheja Centre Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaca3403G (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Ms Ekta Sanghvi, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 21/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the arm's length price cannot be fastened with the assessee. 7. We find that similar issue of penalty

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. ANTRIX DIAMOND EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, these three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.176 To 178/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-3, Vs. Antrix Diamond Exports Pvt. Ltd., Surat. 1006, Free Press Mark, Raheja Centre Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaca3403G (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Ms Ekta Sanghvi, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 21/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the arm's length price cannot be fastened with the assessee. 7. We find that similar issue of penalty

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. ANTRIX DIAMOND EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, these three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.176 To 178/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-3, Vs. Antrix Diamond Exports Pvt. Ltd., Surat. 1006, Free Press Mark, Raheja Centre Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaca3403G (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Ms Ekta Sanghvi, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 21/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the arm's length price cannot be fastened with the assessee. 7. We find that similar issue of penalty

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MAHAVEER SHANTILAL JAIN, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.453/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Ward-2(3)(8), Prop. M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Surat. Office No.401, Floor, H.No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqupj6439L Appellant By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

penalty proceedings. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee but the ITAT in the appeal filed by the assessee allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that notice issued under section 148(1) of the said Act was without jurisdiction and, therefore, the subsequent proceedings are invalid. Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal before

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

penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In all the appeals for the quantum assessment, the Revenue has raised certain common grounds of appeal. Facts in all the years are almost similar except variation in additions or disallowances, therefore, with the consent of parties

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

penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In all the appeals for the quantum assessment, the Revenue has raised certain common grounds of appeal. Facts in all the years are almost similar except variation in additions or disallowances, therefore, with the consent of parties

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

penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In all the appeals for the quantum assessment, the Revenue has raised certain common grounds of appeal. Facts in all the years are almost similar except variation in additions or disallowances, therefore, with the consent of parties

SHRI RAJU MAGANLAL PATEL,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INT. TAXATION, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Raju Maganlal Patel, I.T.O. C/O-Dinkarbhai T. Patel, Shankar (International Taxation), Vs. Talao, Via-Dungri, Valsad. Surat. Pan No. Auspp 1436 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Tara Raju Patel, I.T.O. C/O-Dinkarbhai T. Patel, Shankar (International Taxation), Vs. Talao, Via-Dungri, Valsad. Surat. Pan No. Avdpp 6714 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Transfer Pricing), Ahmedabad on 27/03/2018. Notice under Section 148 dated 28/03/2018 was served upon the assessee through speed post. The Assessing Officer recorded that in response to notice under Section 148, no return of income was filed. The Assessing Officer further recorded that despite serving several notices, which was allegedly served, no justification of cash deposit was Raju Maganlal Patel

TARA RAJU PATEL,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, , SURAT

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Raju Maganlal Patel, I.T.O. C/O-Dinkarbhai T. Patel, Shankar (International Taxation), Vs. Talao, Via-Dungri, Valsad. Surat. Pan No. Auspp 1436 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Tara Raju Patel, I.T.O. C/O-Dinkarbhai T. Patel, Shankar (International Taxation), Vs. Talao, Via-Dungri, Valsad. Surat. Pan No. Avdpp 6714 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Transfer Pricing), Ahmedabad on 27/03/2018. Notice under Section 148 dated 28/03/2018 was served upon the assessee through speed post. The Assessing Officer recorded that in response to notice under Section 148, no return of income was filed. The Assessing Officer further recorded that despite serving several notices, which was allegedly served, no justification of cash deposit was Raju Maganlal Patel

J. KORIN SPINNING PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INT. TAXN.),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2734/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 J.Korin Spinning Pvt. Ltd., V The Income Tax Officer, Office No.502, 5Th Floor, Union S (International Taxation), Surat. Trade Centre, Udhna Darwaja, . Ring Road, Surat – 395 002. [Pan: Aabcj 9649 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri H.R.Vepari – A.R. राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

penalty order. The crux of the argument of the department alongwith appellant's reply is as under: Mr. KYO KEE LEE is a technical advisor (i) Appellant's reply: It has. no relevance because providing services of technical nature is specified as one of the exclusions in paragraph 4 of the Article 13 of the DTAA when such services fall

GIRDHARBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA,SURAT vs. ITO(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), SURAT

In the result, additional grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.143/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Girdharbhai Haribhai Gajera Income Tax Officer 1,Vrushal Nagar, Opp. (International Taxation), 107, 1St Vs. Ktargam Police Station, Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Katargam Road, Surat-35004 Adajan-Hazira Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abepg 7339 M (Assessee ) (Respondent)

Penalty notice u/s. 271(l)(b) was also issued on 08.09.2017. The assessee with other persons have transferred two non- agricultural land to Shanti Integrated Textile Park Pvt. Ltd. and Assessee’s share was Rs.2.28,72,600. The assessee has not offered any capital gain or business income on sale of above land. The assessee vide letter dated 22nd December

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. S D MATERIAL HANDLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.499/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S S D Material Handlers Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat Vs. 405-408, Shivalik Western, L.P. Room No.612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Savani Road, Adajan Adajan Bhavan, Near Majura Gate, Bo, Surat-395009 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccd 3481B (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

price (ii) Recuring annual tax @ 200 + Rs.400/- per every 1000 kgs or part thereof exceeding 2000 kgs. Further, assessing officer has also noticed that the assessee has not debited any amount against RTO tax in its Profit & Loss account for the year under consideration though following capitalization method for sale value of cranes. The assessee-company has not submitted anything

KRISTINA NATHABHAI KRICHCHAN,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), 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.349/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Kristina Nathabhai Krichchan, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(3), 2/4, Zankhana Apartment, Surat. 21 Narmad Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat – 395001. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Dwipk2888D Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 10/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

price by payment in kind or adjustment towards a debt or for other monetary consideration. Each 349/SRT/2022/AY.2016-17 Kristina N. Krichchan release in this case was a transfer of the releasor's share for consideration to the release and the transferee, the assessee, "purchased" the share of property therefore, assessee is entitled to the relief under section

SHRI RADHEYSHYAM BISANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Radheyshyam Bisani, I.T.O., B. 1102, Shyam Sangini Apartment, Ward-1(2)(1), Vs. Gd Goenka Canal Road, Vesu, Surat. Surat. Old Address: 204, Paras Market, Ring Road, Surat. Pan No. Aaspb 9157 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

price of the sales of commodities carried out by the assessee as a trading business. Obviously, it would not include such transfer of immovable or movable property by way of investment. Similarly, where the assessee is not merely selling the movable commodities, but relating to other trading activities, e.g., where assessee is a land developer and he is engaged

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative society, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of white sugar and its by-products such as molasses, press-mud, bagasse and etcetera. The assessee filed its return of income

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative society, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of white sugar and its by-products such as molasses, press-mud, bagasse and etcetera. The assessee filed its return of income

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative society, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of white sugar and its by-products such as molasses, press-mud, bagasse and etcetera. The assessee filed its return of income

BAKIR PACHORIWALA,VALSAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, , VALSAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Bakir Pachorwala, I.T.O., Raj Sheet Metal Engg. Works, C- Ward-1, Vs. 1/16-B, Gidc Estate, Pardi, Valsad. Valsad. Pan No. Adxpp 9237 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is unjustified. 5. The order passed by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) is illegal, invalid and bad in law and required to be quashed.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had sold agricultural land for a consideration of Rs.1.153 crore