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

13. The ld CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee noted that Cochin Tribunal in Kannur district Cooperative Bank Vs ACIT (2012) (136 ITD 102) held that under Banking Regulation Act, 1949, “The banking company” also includes “Cooperative Bank” and further held that as per definition of “Non-schedule Bank” given in the explanation under Section 37(1

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

13. The ld CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee noted that Cochin Tribunal in Kannur district Cooperative Bank Vs ACIT (2012) (136 ITD 102) held that under Banking Regulation Act, 1949, “The banking company” also includes “Cooperative Bank” and further held that as per definition of “Non-schedule Bank” given in the explanation under Section 37(1

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

13. The ld CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee noted that Cochin Tribunal in Kannur district Cooperative Bank Vs ACIT (2012) (136 ITD 102) held that under Banking Regulation Act, 1949, “The banking company” also includes “Cooperative Bank” and further held that as per definition of “Non-schedule Bank” given in the explanation under Section 37(1

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

13. The ld CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee noted that Cochin Tribunal in Kannur district Cooperative Bank Vs ACIT (2012) (136 ITD 102) held that under Banking Regulation Act, 1949, “The banking company” also includes “Cooperative Bank” and further held that as per definition of “Non-schedule Bank” given in the explanation under Section 37(1

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

13. The ld CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee noted that Cochin Tribunal in Kannur district Cooperative Bank Vs ACIT (2012) (136 ITD 102) held that under Banking Regulation Act, 1949, “The banking company” also includes “Cooperative Bank” and further held that as per definition of “Non-schedule Bank” given in the explanation under Section 37(1

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

13. The ld CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee noted that Cochin Tribunal in Kannur district Cooperative Bank Vs ACIT (2012) (136 ITD 102) held that under Banking Regulation Act, 1949, “The banking company” also includes “Cooperative Bank” and further held that as per definition of “Non-schedule Bank” given in the explanation under Section 37(1

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

13,79,301/- out of Rs.97,37,29,984/- made in the assessment order on account of non business expenditure and transfer of profits effected by payment of Sugarcane purchase price at the rate over and above the Fait ano Remunerative Price (FRP) holding that profit element embedded in the sugarcane purchase price paid to the member farmer is Rs.7

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.

13. In the result, ground nos. 4 & 5 in IT(SS)A No.75/SRT/2021 and Ground No.5 & 6 in IT(SS)A No. 76/SRT/2021, are dismissed. 14. In ITA No.171/SRT/2021: Concise and summarize ground no.3, is reproduced below for ready reference and adjudication: “3. In ITA No. 171/SRT/2021 for AY.2008-09 (assessee’s appeal): Ground No.1: On the facts and circumstances

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.

13. In the result, ground nos. 4 & 5 in IT(SS)A No.75/SRT/2021 and Ground No.5 & 6 in IT(SS)A No. 76/SRT/2021, are dismissed. 14. In ITA No.171/SRT/2021: Concise and summarize ground no.3, is reproduced below for ready reference and adjudication: “3. In ITA No. 171/SRT/2021 for AY.2008-09 (assessee’s appeal): Ground No.1: On the facts and circumstances

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.

13. In the result, ground nos. 4 & 5 in IT(SS)A No.75/SRT/2021 and Ground No.5 & 6 in IT(SS)A No. 76/SRT/2021, are dismissed. 14. In ITA No.171/SRT/2021: Concise and summarize ground no.3, is reproduced below for ready reference and adjudication: “3. In ITA No. 171/SRT/2021 for AY.2008-09 (assessee’s appeal): Ground No.1: On the facts and circumstances

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA(3) dated 28/3/2016. The ld. Sr. Counsel submits that the price charged by Captive Power Project (CPP) Unit from paper and board units does not exceed price charged by Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) from assessee company. The ld. CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee, followed the decision of Gujarat High Court

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA(3) dated 28/3/2016. The ld. Sr. Counsel submits that the price charged by Captive Power Project (CPP) Unit from paper and board units does not exceed price charged by Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) from assessee company. The ld. CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee, followed the decision of Gujarat High Court

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA(3) dated 28/3/2016. The ld. Sr. Counsel submits that the price charged by Captive Power Project (CPP) Unit from paper and board units does not exceed price charged by Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) from assessee company. The ld. CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee, followed the decision of Gujarat High Court

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’).

section 92-B of the IT Act and the transfer pricing provisions are not applicable as there is no income. Therefore, considering the same, as the assessee has also given loan to obtain the benefits of full profits earned by the subsidiary and to ensure full control over the operations of the subsidiary. Therefore, this is not comparable

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’).

section 92-B of the IT Act and the transfer pricing provisions are not applicable as there is no income. Therefore, considering the same, as the assessee has also given loan to obtain the benefits of full profits earned by the subsidiary and to ensure full control over the operations of the subsidiary. Therefore, this is not comparable

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

13. It would thus be clear that the Cane Commissioner having power to compel the cane-growers to supply cane to the factory or khandsari unit, he has incidental power and is duty bound to ensure payment of the price of the sugarcane supplied by the sugarcane grower. The price fixed or agreed is a statutory price and bears

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

13. It would thus be clear that the Cane Commissioner having power to compel the cane-growers to supply cane to the factory or khandsari unit, he has incidental power and is duty bound to ensure payment of the price of the sugarcane supplied by the sugarcane grower. The price fixed or agreed is a statutory price and bears

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

13. It would thus be clear that the Cane Commissioner having power to compel the cane-growers to supply cane to the factory or khandsari unit, he has incidental power and is duty bound to ensure payment of the price of the sugarcane supplied by the sugarcane grower. The price fixed or agreed is a statutory price and bears