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.

142(1) of the Act, dated 25.02.2016: (i). Copy of return of income of M/s Rangila Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y.2008-09 (ii). Confirmation of M/s Rangila Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. (iii). Bank statement of M/s Rangila Suppliers Pvt. Ltd highlighting the transactions taken place during the year under consideration. (iv). Share certificate issued to the allottee, i.e. M/s Rangila Suppliers

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.

142(1) of the Act, dated 25.02.2016: (i). Copy of return of income of M/s Rangila Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y.2008-09 (ii). Confirmation of M/s Rangila Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. (iii). Bank statement of M/s Rangila Suppliers Pvt. Ltd highlighting the transactions taken place during the year under consideration. (iv). Share certificate issued to the allottee, i.e. M/s Rangila Suppliers

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)

142(1) was issued on 19.07.2018, with a specific questionnaire and asked the assessee to submit its reply on 27.07.2018. In response to the notices issued, assessee furnished documents and its reply. The assessee, vide its letter dated 01.08.2018, submitted its reply. The relevant portion of the submission is reproduced below: “Further in contention of our earlier submission

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

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

142(1) and 143(2) of the Act, the show-cause notice, and the\nassessee's written submissions placed on record. It is evident that statutory\nnotices were issued, the assessee was put to notice of the proposed\ndisallowance and was afforded opportunity, albeit within the faceless\nframework. The assessee has not been able to point out any concrete\ninstance

SHRI MUKESH N. DESAI,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ram Lal Negi & Shri O. P. Meena

142(2A) nor made any enquiry in support of claim that the AO has received over and above the sale consideration shown in the registered sale deed. The learned counsel for the assessee placing reliance in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC)/ 7 Taxman 13 (SC) claimed that where understatement of consideration in transfer

M/S. VIPUL PARK,TAPI vs. THE DCIT,CENT.CIR.-2, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1195/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Vipul Park, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Andhar Wadi Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Vyara, Dist. Tapi – 394 650. Surat. [Pan: Aalfm 3438 P] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

prices with a view to increasing the profits of the business in the year of transfer and has designed to derive high deduction u/s. 80IB(10). The intention of the Legislature as per section 80IA(9), has 6 M/s.Vipul Park Vs. DCIT, CC-2, Surat/ ITA No.1195/AHD/2013 for A.Y. 2009-10 been to disallow any such move, for it requires

KANUBHAI VANMALIBHAI PATEL HUF,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel I.T.O.,Ward 1(2)(1), Huf,6, Siddharth Society, Surat. Vs. Behind Afil Tower, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat-395010. Pan: Aakhp 0725 K Appellant Respondednt

142(1) of the Act was served upon the assessee for seeking certain information about short term/long term capital gain and agricultural income and accepted the returned income in assessment order dated 13/12/2018 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The 2 Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel HUF Vs ITO assessment order was revised by the ld. Pr.CIT vide his order

M/S. MITSU PRIVATE LIMITED,,VAPI vs. THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

price. The purchaser companies are also assessed at maximum marginal rate. We find that the AO had made addition only on presumption basis without bringing on record any cogent material to establish that sales were made with a view to decrease profit. The assessee company which is having a turnover of more than Rs.40 crores would undertake such step total

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. MITSU LIMITED,, DAMAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

price. The purchaser companies are also assessed at maximum marginal rate. We find that the AO had made addition only on presumption basis without bringing on record any cogent material to establish that sales were made with a view to decrease profit. The assessee company which is having a turnover of more than Rs.40 crores would undertake such step total

SAHAKARI KHAND UDUOG MANDAL LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

transfer of profits effected by payment of\nSugarcane purchase price at the rate over and above the Fait and\nRemunerative Price (FRP) holding that profit element embedded in the\nsugarcane purchase price paid to the member farmer is Rs. 13,14,995/- @\nRs.11/- per MT on purchase of 119544.985 MT sugarcane from member\nfarmers when sugarcane purchase price given

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE, NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

142(1) and 143(2) of the Act, the show-cause notice, and the\nassessee's written submissions placed on record. It is evident that statutory\nnotices were issued, the assessee was put to notice of the proposed\ndisallowance and was afforded opportunity, albeit within the faceless\nframework. The assessee has not been able to point out any concrete\ninstance

MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD,.,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, , NAVSARI

142(1) and 143(2) of the Act, the show-cause notice, and the\nassessee's written submissions placed on record. It is evident that statutory\nnotices were issued, the assessee was put to notice of the proposed\ndisallowance and was afforded opportunity, albeit within the faceless\nframework. The assessee has not been able to point out any concrete\ninstance

SAHADARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

transfer of profits effected by payment of\nSugarcane purchase price at the rate over and above the Fait and\nRemunerative Price (FRP) holding that profit element embedded in the\nsugarcane purchase price paid to the member farmer is Rs. 13,14,995/-@\nRs.11/- per MT on purchase of 119544.985 MT sugarcane from member\nfarmers when sugarcane purchase price given

SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.,,GANDEVI vs. ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

142(1) and 143(2) of the Act, the show-cause notice, and the\nassessee's written submissions placed on record. It is evident that statutory\nnotices were issued, the assessee was put to notice of the proposed\ndisallowance and was afforded opportunity, albeit within the faceless\nframework. The assessee has not been able to point out any concrete\ninstance

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE, NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG, KAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD., NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

142(1) and 143(2) of the Act, the show-cause notice, and the\nassessee's written submissions placed on record. It is evident that statutory\nnotices were issued, the assessee was put to notice of the proposed\ndisallowance and was afforded opportunity, albeit within the faceless\nframework. The assessee has not been able to point out any concrete\ninstance

BHARATKUMAR RANCHODBHAI SONI,NA vs. ARIVS.PCIT, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case\nmay be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the\ninterests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal [Chief Commissioner or\nChief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner, —\n(a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have\nbeen made

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

142(1) of the Income Tax 1961 dated you were asked to furnish the copy of the registered document as already considerable time has been passed since the statkhat. The reply furnished by you dated is reproduced below- 349/SRT/2022/AY.2016-17 Kristina N. Krichchan 1. Copy of sale agreement with possession is already submitted “Annexure -6” of my earlier submission. Regarding Registered

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISES,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

price of the plots. 3. The Revenue in its Cross appeal for the A.Y. 2010-11 has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.25,34,125/- for AY 2009-10* and Rs.4