BILAKHIA HOLDING P LTD,VAPI vs. THE JT.CIT.,VAPI RANGE,, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.507/Ahd/2013: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A.No.1415Ahd/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1416/Ahd/2015:िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.795/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bialkhia Holdings Pvt. Vs. Addl.Cit Range - Vapi / Ltd., Bilakhia House, Assistant Commissioner Of Muktanand Marg, Chala Income Tax Vapi Circle Vapi, Vapi, Gujarat. Shivam Commercial Complex, [Pan: Aadcs 4420 J] National Highway No.8, Vapi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

transfer pricing mandate that such loan be bench marked in terms of arm’s length price of the loan. A loan per se cannot be termed as quasi equity and the assessee may claim zero bench marking under this Bilakhia Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT- Vapi/ I.T.A.No.507/Ahd/2013/AY08-09/A.Y. 08-09 I.T.A.No’s.1415 & 1416/Ahd/2015/A.Y. 09-10 & 10-11 AND I.T.A.No.795/Ahd/2016/A.Y

BILAKHIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,VAPI vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,VAPI RANGE,, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.507/Ahd/2013: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A.No.1415Ahd/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1416/Ahd/2015:िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.795/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bialkhia Holdings Pvt. Vs. Addl.Cit Range - Vapi / Ltd., Bilakhia House, Assistant Commissioner Of Muktanand Marg, Chala Income Tax Vapi Circle Vapi, Vapi, Gujarat. Shivam Commercial Complex, [Pan: Aadcs 4420 J] National Highway No.8, Vapi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

transfer pricing mandate that such loan be bench marked in terms of arm’s length price of the loan. A loan per se cannot be termed as quasi equity and the assessee may claim zero bench marking under this Bilakhia Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT- Vapi/ I.T.A.No.507/Ahd/2013/AY08-09/A.Y. 08-09 I.T.A.No’s.1415 & 1416/Ahd/2015/A.Y. 09-10 & 10-11 AND I.T.A.No.795/Ahd/2016/A.Y

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

11. The ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee finally submits that the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. 412 ITR 420 is not applicable in all these appeals. In the said case, the issue before the Hon’ble Court was whether sugarcane price paid Shree Narmada Khan Udyog Sahkari Mandali

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

11. The ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee finally submits that the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. 412 ITR 420 is not applicable in all these appeals. In the said case, the issue before the Hon’ble Court was whether sugarcane price paid Shree Narmada Khan Udyog Sahkari Mandali

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

11. The ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee finally submits that the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. 412 ITR 420 is not applicable in all these appeals. In the said case, the issue before the Hon’ble Court was whether sugarcane price paid Shree Narmada Khan Udyog Sahkari Mandali

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

4. Decision: I have considered the orders of TPO and the submissions of the appellant. During transfer pricing proceedings, the TPO noticed that the assessee used TNMM as MAM for determining the ALP of the transaction of sale and purchase of diamonds to and from its AE. There was no segmental working of profits and operating cost was worked

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

4. Decision: I have considered the orders of TPO and the submissions of the appellant. During transfer pricing proceedings, the TPO noticed that the assessee used TNMM as MAM for determining the ALP of the transaction of sale and purchase of diamonds to and from its AE. There was no segmental working of profits and operating cost was worked

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

4. Decision: I have considered the orders of TPO and the submissions of the appellant. During transfer pricing proceedings, the TPO noticed that the assessee used TNMM as MAM for determining the ALP of the transaction of sale and purchase of diamonds to and from its AE. There was no segmental working of profits and operating cost was worked

HUBERGROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,VAPI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.133/Srt/2022 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Hubergroup India Pvt. Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of Plot No.808/E, Phase-Ii, Income Tax, Valsad, Room Vs Gidc, Vapi-396195 No.301, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax Pan No. Aaach 7063 F Office, Palak Arcade, Pali Hill, Santi Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

4) prescribed that where a reference under sub-section (1) of section 92CA is made during the 13 Hubergroup India Pvt. Ltd. course of assessment proceedings, the period available for completion of assessment under sub-clause (1), (2)(3) shall be extended by twelve months only. Therefore, to avail the extended period of completion the reference to TPO shall

JITENDRAKUMAR AMBELAL PATEL,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-3, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for e appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Jitendrakumarambelal Patel Ito, Ward-3, 52, Kanbiwad. At & Po-Pananj, Room No. 108, Swapnalok Soc., Tal-Chikhli, Navsari-396521 Vs. Near Kaliawadi Bridge, Navsari - 396521 Pan No. Bncpp 7509 R Appellant Respondent

Section 147. 6.4 We, therefore, find no infirmity in the reopening of the We, therefore, find no infirmity in the reopening of the We, therefore, find no infirmity in the reopening of the assessment. Accordingly, assessment. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 of the appeal stands Ground No. 1 of the appeal stands dismissed. Addition of ₹46,05,680/- in respect

SHRI DINESHBHAI VITTALBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.970/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Shri Dineshbhai Vittalbhai Income Tax Officer, Patel, Ward- 2(3)(7), Surat 6/1261, Bhut Sheri, Mahidharpura Surat Pan: Aatwpp 3597J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

transfer and the land was acquired under compulsory acquisition. The assessee has filed a letter no. TBT/OUT/ 4089 /22 dated. 23.09.2014 and claimed that agricultural block situated at Dindoli Surat was kept under reservation by Government of Gujarat vide notification no. GH/100 of 2004 /DVP/1403/3307 dated. 02.09.2014 and has been acquired under provision of Section 20 of Gujarat Town Planning

HEMANT NARESH AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR. 4, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआ.(खो और ज).सं /It(Ss)A No.68 & 70/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2018-19 (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Hemant Naresh Agarwal बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Vs. Surat Room No.508, 5Th Floor, Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat-395 010 Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.170/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hemant Naresh Agarwal Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Surat-395 010 Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Kiran K. Shah राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr & Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

price but there was no difference in quantitative details, no addition under section 69B could be made, and was to be deleted. – Vide Pr. CIT vs. Gladder Ceramics Ltd. 2018 Tax Pub (DT) 463(Guj-HC) : (2018) 401ITR 205 (Guj). 1.8 The Respondent urges that the said digital data has no date, no details of any buyer or seller

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

DHANSUKHBHAI PARAGJIBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1021/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Shri Dhansukhbhai Deputy Commissioner Of Paragjibhai Patel, Income-Tax, 143, Brahaman Faliya, Circle - 2(3) Surat Dindoli Udhna 394210 Pan: Avdpp7007 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

transfer and the land was acquired under compulsory acquisition. The assessee has filed a letter no. TBT/OUT/ 4089 /22 dated. 23.09.2014 and claimed that agricultural block situated at Dindoli Surat was kept under reservation by Government of Gujarat vide notification no. GH/100 of 2004 /DVP/1403/3307 dated. 02.09.2014 and has been acquired under provision of Section 20 of Gujarat Town Planning

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

Transfer Pricing Officer by assessing officer to determine Arm's Length Price (ALP) of international transactions with AEs. The TPO vide Order dated 30 January 2014, made an adjustment of Rs. 6,36,13,021/-. 3. On the basis of the Order passed by TPO, the assessing officer made the draft assessment order under section 144C

NEELU MAHANSARIA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3)(3), SURAT

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.197/Srt/2023 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Neelu Mahansaria Income Tax Officer, 304, Green Park Apartment, Ward-1(3)(3), Surat Vs City Light Road, Nr. Corner Point Complex, Surat-395007 Pan No: Adbpm 2707 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 11, 11(4) and 11(B) of Security Exchange Board of India Act dated 05/10/ 2017 is filed. 6. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that Assessing Officer has made addition without giving any adverse finding on the evidences 6 Neelu Mahansaria furnished by the assessee or bringing any adverse materials against evidence furnished by assessee and assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT vs. JAYANTIBHAI VIRJIBHAI BABARIYA, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.297/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, Income-Tax, Circle-2, Surat, Vs. K-801, River View Heights, Room No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pedar Road, Mota Varachha, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Surat-394101 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpb 0820 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

4) and section 292(C) are not available against the assessee. The above mentioned sauda chithi is neither in the hand writing of the assessee nor it is signed by the assessee. Moreover, the sauda chithi does not contain the name of the assessee. Statement of the assessee, who has been stated by Shri Manoj C. Patel as sender

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1(1)(1), SURAT vs. V R SURAT PVT. LTD. FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S DHANLAXMI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee (in CO

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Vs. V R Surat Pvt. Ltd. 1(1)(1), Surat, Room No.111, 1St (Formerly Known As M/S. Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Dhanlaxmi Infrastructure Pvt. Gate, Surat-395001 Ltd.,).F. No.29, Virtuous Retail, Surat Dumas, Nr. Dumas Resort, Magdalla, Surat– 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccd5578R (Assessee) (Respondent) ""या"ेप. सं./Co No.16/Srt/2022 [Arising Out Of Ita No.329/Srt/2022] Assessment Year: (2015-16)

4) of the Rules it is provided that where an international transaction continues to have effect over more than one previous year, fresh documentation need not be maintained separately in respect of each previous year, unless there is any significant change in the nature of terms of the international transactions or in any other factor which could influence the transfer