RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

40A(3A) of the Act, 1961. (disallowance in ground no.7 in ITA No.194/SRT/22 at Rs.38,000/- and Ground No.3 in ITA No.193/SRT/22 at Rs.11,88,236/- ) (iv) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 194/SRT/2022, and ground No. 2 raised by the assessee, in ITA No.193/SRT/2022, are as follows: “On the facts on the facts and circumstances

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, , VAPI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

40A(3A) of the Act, 1961. (disallowance in ground no.7 in ITA No.194/SRT/22 at Rs.38,000/- and Ground No.3 in ITA No.193/SRT/22 at Rs.11,88,236/- ) (iv) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 194/SRT/2022, and ground No. 2 raised by the assessee, in ITA No.193/SRT/2022, are as follows: “On the facts on the facts and circumstances

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

40A(3A) of the Act, 1961. (disallowance in ground no.7 in ITA No.194/SRT/22 at Rs.38,000/- and Ground No.3 in ITA No.193/SRT/22 at Rs.11,88,236/- ) (iv) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 194/SRT/2022, and ground No. 2 raised by the assessee, in ITA No.193/SRT/2022, are as follows: “On the facts on the facts and circumstances

M/S. BAYER VAPI PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,),VAPI vs. THE ADDL.CIT., VAPI RANGE,, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P. Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2912/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम M/S. Bayer Vapi Private Limited) Addl. Cit Range- (Formerly M/S. Bilag Industries Vs. Vapi, Range Vapi Pvt. Ltd.), 306/3,Phase-Ii, Shivam Commercial Complex Gidc-1, Vapi Gujarat. National Highway No 8 Vapi Pan: Aabcb 2100 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

40A(2)(b). The assessee has acquired the Bayer Vapi Pvt. Ltd. Formerly Bilag Industries v. Addl. CIT – R- Vapi/I.T.A.No.2912/AHD/2015/A.Y. 10-11 5 Lmidachloropid business of Mitsu Limited as slump sale basis for a total consideration of Rs.27.50 crores as a going concern basis. M/s. Mitsu Industries Ltd. has been carrying on its business from last 15 years and Lmidachloropid

M/S. BAYER VAPI PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.),VAPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.219/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Bayer Vapi Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of V (Formerly Known As Bilag Industries Pvt. Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi. S. Ltd.,), 306/3, Iind Phase, Gidc, Vapi – 396 195. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcb 2100 L (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gopala Krishnan - Ca Respondent By : Shri S.T.Bidari-Cit(Dr) & Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09/06/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To A.Y.2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Valsad Dated 29.01.2018 Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Ld.Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Dated 29.03.2016. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “01. The Order Of Assessment Is Contrary To The Facts & Prejudicial To The Assessee. 02. On Appreciation Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Additions Made By The Learned Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Are Contrary To Law & Based On Erroneous Understanding Of The Facts. 03. On Appreciation Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming

2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as the point of sales. The Learned counsel submitted that assets acquired under slump sale were capitalized in books of account as per generally accepted accounting principles in a slump sale several assets are purchased for a consolidated price and price is paid for the entire business as a whole. Hence, value

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH vs. GUJARAT INSECTICIDES LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

40A(2)(b) is not applicable on the assessee’s transactions with Gharda Chemicals Ltd., as the extra benefit granted was a normal commercial transaction without appreciating the fact that interest bearing funds were parked with holding company.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in business of manufacturing of insecticides, pesticides

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH vs. GUJARAT INSECTICIDES LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

40A(2)(b) is not applicable on the assessee’s transactions with Gharda Chemicals Ltd., as the extra benefit granted was a normal commercial transaction without appreciating the fact that interest bearing funds were parked with holding company.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in business of manufacturing of insecticides, pesticides

GUJARAT INSECTICIDES LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

40A(2)(b) is not applicable on the assessee’s transactions with Gharda Chemicals Ltd., as the extra benefit granted was a normal commercial transaction without appreciating the fact that interest bearing funds were parked with holding company.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in business of manufacturing of insecticides, pesticides

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

40A(2) of the Act separately in respect of\npayments to non-members. According to the CIT-DR, this framework of\nanalysis remains fully binding even after the shift from the SMP–5A regime\nto the FRP regime, because the core principle is that expenditure in the\nnature of profit distribution cannot be allowed as deduction, and only that\npart

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

40A(2) of the Act separately in respect of\npayments to non-members. According to the CIT-DR, this framework of\nanalysis remains fully binding even after the shift from the SMP–5A regime\nto the FRP regime, because the core principle is that expenditure in the\nnature of profit distribution cannot be allowed as deduction, and only that\npart

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

40A(2) of the Act separately in respect of\npayments to non-members. According to the CIT-DR, this framework of\nanalysis remains fully binding even after the shift from the SMP–5A regime\nto the FRP regime, because the core principle is that expenditure in the\nnature of profit distribution cannot be allowed as deduction, and only that\npart

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

40A(2) of the Act separately in respect of\npayments to non-members. According to the CIT-DR, this framework of\nanalysis remains fully binding even after the shift from the SMP–5A regime\nto the FRP regime, because the core principle is that expenditure in the\nnature of profit distribution cannot be allowed as deduction, and only that\npart

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

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

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 KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD,, NAVASARI

40A(2) of the Act separately in respect of\npayments to non-members. According to the CIT-DR, this framework of\nanalysis remains fully binding even after the shift from the SMP–5A regime\nto the FRP regime, because the core principle is that expenditure in the\nnature of profit distribution cannot be allowed as deduction, and only that\npart

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

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