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

144B and CBDT instructions, and denial of proper opportunity. We\nhave perused the chronology of events, including the notices issued under\nsections 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

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

144B and CBDT instructions, and denial of proper opportunity. We\nhave perused the chronology of events, including the notices issued under\nsections 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

SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.,,GANDEVI vs. 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

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

144B and CBDT instructions, and denial of proper opportunity. We\nhave perused the chronology of events, including the notices issued under\nsections 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

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

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

144B and CBDT instructions, and denial of proper opportunity. We\nhave perused the chronology of events, including the notices issued under\nsections 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

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

144B and CBDT instructions, and denial of proper opportunity. We\nhave perused the chronology of events, including the notices issued under\nsections 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

YOGESHKUMAR HARISHBHAI MALI,SURAT vs. PCIT, SURAT-1, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.420/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Yogeshkumar Harishbhai Mali, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ 117, Khambhati Panchni Waid Income-Tax, Surat-1, Income Tax Vs. Rustompura, Surat - 395002 Office, 123, 1Stfloor, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abdpm 3296 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (प्र"थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 04/06/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2025

144B of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Before deciding the ground, it would be proper to reproduce section 263 of the Act to appreciate scope and admit of the said section: “263. (1) The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or] Commissioner may call for and examine the record

WIND FINANCIAL SERVICES LLP,DAMAN & DIU vs. PCIT, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.501 & 502/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Wind Financial Services Llp, Vs. The Pcit, [Formerly Known Wind Financial Valsad Services Pvt. Ltd.] Shop No.102/A, 436 Sq Feet Built Up, Dabhel, Daman & Diu, Valsad – 396215 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfw6369H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri S. N. Divetia, Ar Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From The Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad [In Short, ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 16.03.2024 For Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since Facts Of The Cases & The Grounds Taken Up In The Appeals Are Similar Except Variation In The Amount, These Appeals Were Heard Together & A Common Order Is Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. Ita No. 501/Srt/2024 Is Taken As The ‘Lead Case’.

144B of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Before deciding the ground, it would be proper to reproduce section 263 of the Act to appreciate scope and admit of the said section: “263. (1) The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or] Commissioner may call for and examine the record

WIND FINANCIAL SERVICES LLP,DAMAN & DIU vs. PCIT, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.501 & 502/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Wind Financial Services Llp, Vs. The Pcit, [Formerly Known Wind Financial Valsad Services Pvt. Ltd.] Shop No.102/A, 436 Sq Feet Built Up, Dabhel, Daman & Diu, Valsad – 396215 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfw6369H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri S. N. Divetia, Ar Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From The Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad [In Short, ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 16.03.2024 For Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since Facts Of The Cases & The Grounds Taken Up In The Appeals Are Similar Except Variation In The Amount, These Appeals Were Heard Together & A Common Order Is Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. Ita No. 501/Srt/2024 Is Taken As The ‘Lead Case’.

144B of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Before deciding the ground, it would be proper to reproduce section 263 of the Act to appreciate scope and admit of the said section: “263. (1) The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or] Commissioner may call for and examine the record

MS. SHREE WAHEGURU FASHIONS PVT. LTD.,RING ROAD, SURAT vs. PCIT , AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.402/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Shree Waheguru Fashions Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd., B-1110, Radha Krishna Vs. Income-Tax (Central), Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat Central Circle-1, Surat, Aayakar - 395002 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aahcs 9568 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may, and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, [including,- (i) An order enhancing or modifying the assessment

SMT. KANCHANBEN PRAVINBHAI SHETH,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.343 & 344/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kanchanben Pravinbhai Sheth Vs. Pcit - 1, Surat 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adops2971D (Appellant) (Respondent) Gautam Pravinbhai Sheth (Huf) Vs. Pcit - 1, 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafhg1435A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2025

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

GAUTAM PRAVINCHANDRA SHETH HUF,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.343 & 344/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kanchanben Pravinbhai Sheth Vs. Pcit - 1, Surat 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adops2971D (Appellant) (Respondent) Gautam Pravinbhai Sheth (Huf) Vs. Pcit - 1, 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafhg1435A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2025

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL CO. PVT LTD,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.541/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit -1, 444, Royal Arcade, Opp. Sarthana Zoo, Surat Varachha Road, Near Sarthana Jakatnaka, Surat – 395006, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabce0313Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 13/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/02/2025

144B of the Act that the AO has passed a cryptic order in a perfunctory manner. He has not passed a speaking order containing the conclusion and the reasons that have led to such conclusion; especially considering the fact that the case was selected for complete scrutiny. The assessee was engaged in the business of construction of water supply projects