BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

price (discount) (excluding value as on in value of on premium) 31.03.2009 investment acquisition 1 6.17% Bond maturing in 202,560,000 2,560,000 2000,000,000 173,700,000 26,300,000 2023 2 6.05% Bond maturing in 253,400,000 3,400,000 250,000,000 231,975,000 18,025,000 2019 3 6.01% Bond maturing

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

price (discount) (excluding value as on in value of on premium) 31.03.2009 investment acquisition 1 6.17% Bond maturing in 202,560,000 2,560,000 2000,000,000 173,700,000 26,300,000 2023 2 6.05% Bond maturing in 253,400,000 3,400,000 250,000,000 231,975,000 18,025,000 2019 3 6.01% Bond maturing

THE BHARUCH DIST.CENTRAL CO.OP.BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

price (discount) (excluding value as on in value of on premium) 31.03.2009 investment acquisition 1 6.17% Bond maturing in 202,560,000 2,560,000 2000,000,000 173,700,000 26,300,000 2023 2 6.05% Bond maturing in 253,400,000 3,400,000 250,000,000 231,975,000 18,025,000 2019 3 6.01% Bond maturing

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

price (discount) (excluding value as on in value of on premium) 31.03.2009 investment acquisition 1 6.17% Bond maturing in 202,560,000 2,560,000 2000,000,000 173,700,000 26,300,000 2023 2 6.05% Bond maturing in 253,400,000 3,400,000 250,000,000 231,975,000 18,025,000 2019 3 6.01% Bond maturing

THE BHARUCH DIST.CENTRAL CO.OP.BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

price (discount) (excluding value as on in value of on premium) 31.03.2009 investment acquisition 1 6.17% Bond maturing in 202,560,000 2,560,000 2000,000,000 173,700,000 26,300,000 2023 2 6.05% Bond maturing in 253,400,000 3,400,000 250,000,000 231,975,000 18,025,000 2019 3 6.01% Bond maturing

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

price (discount) (excluding value as on in value of on premium) 31.03.2009 investment acquisition 1 6.17% Bond maturing in 202,560,000 2,560,000 2000,000,000 173,700,000 26,300,000 2023 2 6.05% Bond maturing in 253,400,000 3,400,000 250,000,000 231,975,000 18,025,000 2019 3 6.01% Bond maturing

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

price (discount) (excluding value as on in value of on premium) 31.03.2009 investment acquisition 1 6.17% Bond maturing in 202,560,000 2,560,000 2000,000,000 173,700,000 26,300,000 2023 2 6.05% Bond maturing in 253,400,000 3,400,000 250,000,000 231,975,000 18,025,000 2019 3 6.01% Bond maturing

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

10. The Id. AR also submitted that the fixation of the final cane price is not an arbitrary unilateral act but occurs under a regulatory umbrella involving the oversight or concurrence of statutory authorities such as the Director of Sugar, Gujarat State, and the Registrar and District Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The cane price is declared, approved and recorded

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.

transfer pricing adjustment can be made. This proviso was substituted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 w. e. f. 01-10-2009. Explanation to sub-section (2) of section 92C has clarified : "that the provisions of the second proviso shall also be applicable to all assessment or reassessment proceedings pending before the Assessing Officer as on 1st October, 2009". Thus

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

10 of the appeal is dismissed. 49. Ground No. 11 of the appeal relates to deleting the addition of Rs. 38,73,80,422/- made under Section 80IA of the Act. Learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer made disallowance in pursuance of order passed by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA(3) dated 28/3/2016

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

10 of the appeal is dismissed. 49. Ground No. 11 of the appeal relates to deleting the addition of Rs. 38,73,80,422/- made under Section 80IA of the Act. Learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer made disallowance in pursuance of order passed by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA(3) dated 28/3/2016

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

10 of the appeal is dismissed. 49. Ground No. 11 of the appeal relates to deleting the addition of Rs. 38,73,80,422/- made under Section 80IA of the Act. Learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer made disallowance in pursuance of order passed by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA(3) dated 28/3/2016

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT vs. DHANPRIYA PRINTS PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

10. The common ground no.2, raised by the Revenue, is reproduced below for ready reference and adjudication. “2. Common Ground No.2: In these common grounds, the Revenue has raised the issue that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in entertaining the rectification application under section 154 of the Act filed by the assessee and allowing the claim of the assessee. Appeal

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. BETEX INDIA LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

10. The common ground no.2, raised by the Revenue, is reproduced below for ready reference and adjudication. “2. Common Ground No.2: In these common grounds, the Revenue has raised the issue that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in entertaining the rectification application under section 154 of the Act filed by the assessee and allowing the claim of the assessee. Appeal

BETEX INDIA LIMITED,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

10. The common ground no.2, raised by the Revenue, is reproduced below for ready reference and adjudication. “2. Common Ground No.2: In these common grounds, the Revenue has raised the issue that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in entertaining the rectification application under section 154 of the Act filed by the assessee and allowing the claim of the assessee. Appeal

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

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

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

section 37(1) of the Act. The assessing officer also held that SMP was fixed on the basis of recommendations of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) after consulting the State Governments and associations of sugar industry and cane growers, on considering various factors like in a scientific manner, using an accepted tools of economic and statistical analysis