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 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

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 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

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

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 271(1)(c) of the Act TO THE TUNE OF Rs.41,81,930/-. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who has confirmed the penalty imposed by the AO observing as follows: “considering the above factual and legal positions, it is apparent that the appellant

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 271(1)(c) of the Act TO THE TUNE OF Rs.41,81,930/-. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who has confirmed the penalty imposed by the AO observing as follows: “considering the above factual and legal positions, it is apparent that the appellant

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

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, 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

c) for assessment year 2007-08 are rejected." 2.4.2 Since no difference in the fact could be pointed out by the ld.DR. in the present year also, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee by respectfully following the Tribunal order in earlier two years as per the relevant para reproduced above. Accordingly, this ground of the revenue

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

c) for assessment year 2007-08 are rejected." 2.4.2 Since no difference in the fact could be pointed out by the ld.DR. in the present year also, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee by respectfully following the Tribunal order in earlier two years as per the relevant para reproduced above. Accordingly, this ground of the revenue

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

c) for assessment year 2007-08 are rejected." 2.4.2 Since no difference in the fact could be pointed out by the ld.DR. in the present year also, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee by respectfully following the Tribunal order in earlier two years as per the relevant para reproduced above. Accordingly, this ground of the revenue

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

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

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

SHRI JIVRAJBHAI H. BALAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, ( IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.150 To 154/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2004-05 To 2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1245/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-1, 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent)

price or value as per Stamp duty authority comes at the rate of Rs. 2001.06/- per sq Mtr. So the total value as per Stamp Duty Authority comes as under: 5289.74 X 2001.05 = Rs.1,05,85,101/- So from the above discussion the value of the land sold during the year as per Stamp Duty Authority comes at Rs 1