BILAKHIA HOLDINGS PVT. 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 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 regulations, cannot be compared with a transaction which is something materially different than a loan simplictor, for example, a non- refundable loan which is to be converted into equity. It is in this context that the loans, which are in the nature of quasi capital, are treated differently than the normal loan transactions. 9. The expression 'quasi capital

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 regulations, cannot be compared with a transaction which is something materially different than a loan simplictor, for example, a non- refundable loan which is to be converted into equity. It is in this context that the loans, which are in the nature of quasi capital, are treated differently than the normal loan transactions. 9. The expression 'quasi capital

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

c) The decision of the officer or authority referred to in sub-clause (4) where no appeal is filed, and of the Central Government where an appeal is filed, shall be final. (6) The price determined under sub-clause (4) or sub-clause (5), as the case may be, shall be paid at such time and in such

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

c) The decision of the officer or authority referred to in sub-clause (4) where no appeal is filed, and of the Central Government where an appeal is filed, shall be final. (6) The price determined under sub-clause (4) or sub-clause (5), as the case may be, shall be paid at such time and in such

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

c) The decision of the officer or authority referred to in sub-clause (4) where no appeal is filed, and of the Central Government where an appeal is filed, shall be final. (6) The price determined under sub-clause (4) or sub-clause (5), as the case may be, shall be paid at such time and in such

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

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

TARACHAND MOHANLAL AGARWAL,SURAT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SURAT-01, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kambletarachand Mohanlal Agarwal, The Principal Commissioner Vs. D-509, Shreepal Residency, Of Income Tax-1, Near Corner Point, Surat. City Light Road, Surat-395007. [Pan : Aazpa7937K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hiren Vepari, Ar Respondent By: Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21.01.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

Transfer Pricing Officer;] (b) "record" shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner; (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer

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

C" Bench, Kolkata is illegally justified to hold that since notice under section 143(2) was not issued by the ITO - Ward 56(4), Kolkata, the assessment order passed by him is a nullity and without jurisdiction ? 5. We have heard Mr. Mitra, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel assisted

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

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)

Section 92D of the Act, r/w Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’), an external benchmark was claimed to have been undertaken by the company on data available on national Security Depository Limited (NSDL) website. In the said benchmarking exercise, the mean interest rate of comparable transactions was arrived at 16.83% p.a against 15% p.a. paid

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

price by payment in kind or adjustment towards a debt or for other monetary consideration. Each 349/SRT/2022/AY.2016-17 Kristina N. Krichchan release in this case was a transfer of the releasor's share for consideration to the release and the transferee, the assessee, "purchased" the share of property therefore, assessee is entitled to the relief under section

M/S. MAYUR CONSTRUCTION,,VALSAD vs. THE ACIT., VALSAD RANGE,, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 1042/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mayur Construction, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad. 110, Amar Chamber,Valsad. S [Pan: Aadfm 9859 L] . अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

transfer of possession 1. A-1/102 7,02,000/- F.Y. 2010-11 2. B-701 3,33,000/- F.Y. 2009-10 3. B-707 5,26,500/- F.Y. 2009-10 4. B-703 5,26,500/- F.Y. 2010-11 5. B-401 3,33,000/- F.Y. 2010-11 Total 24,21,000/- 7 Mayur Construction Ltd. Vs. ACIT

ITO, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT vs. MAHESHCHAND G. PATEL (HUF), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) I.T.O., Maheshchandra G. Patel (Huf), Ward-2(2)(3), 22, Vrajbhumi, Tirumala Society, In Vs. Surat. Front Of Balaji Nagar, Piplod, Surat. Pan No. Aajhm 2315 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

transferred from I.T.O., Ward 1(3)(4) on 01/07/2015 to the I.T.O., Ward-2(2)(3), Surat. In the addition to above, the Assessing Officer was also having information that in the search action at Pitamber Bhagwandas Ruchandani, evidence relating to sale of immovable property of Rs. 15.66 crores were found. The assessee was having 50% of share

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

C. Patel. Accordingly, as per the observation of the ld. Assessing Officer, the ld. Assessing Officer, the seller of land Smt. Ur seller of land Smt. Urvashi Alias, Urmilaben Ajitbhai Desai has executed sale deed of one piece Urmilaben Ajitbhai Desai has executed sale deed of one piece Urmilaben Ajitbhai Desai has executed sale deed of one piece 10.68 bighas

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT vs. SMT. URMI NILESH NAGARSETH, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Smt Urmi Nilesh Nagarseth, Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat C-4, Dharam Palace, B/H. Sneh Sankul Hall, Anand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat-395009. Pan : Abrpn1596Q Appellant Respondednt

C-4, Dharam Palace, B/h. Sneh Sankul Hall, Anand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat-395009. PAN : ABRPN1596Q APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT(DR) Respondent by Ms Urvashi Shodhan - AR Date of hearing 30/09/2020 Date of pronouncement 09/10/2020 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order

M/S. C. J. GROUP & GAJRAS BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS,PANVEL, MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.02/Srt/2021 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) M/S C.J. Group & Gajras Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Builders & Developers, Vs Bharuch Bhoomi Land Mark, Plot No. 30-30A, Sector-17, Khan Colony, Panvel-410206, Maharashtra Pan No. Aagfc 4658 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) on 24.03.2014. M/s C J Group & Gajras Builders & Developers 2. On perusal of record shows that impugned order was passed by Ld. CIT(A) on 24.08.2020, however, assessee has filed present appeal on 05.01.2021. Thus, there is delay of 65 days

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

4) In any other case, the from shall be accompanied by a copy of the agreement, approval or permission, as the case may be, to carry on the activity signed or issued by the Central Government or the State Government or the local authority for carrying on the eligible business.]….” Hence, it is clear that the assessee has failed