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

prices or market value whichever is lower by treating such stock-in-trade........." 7.4 In RBI's Master Circular, under the caption 2 Classification, it has been mentioned thus— "(i) The entire investment portfolio of the banks (including SLR securities and non-SLR securities) should be classified under three categories viz., 'Held to maturity', 'Available for Sale' and 'Held

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

prices or market value whichever is lower by treating such stock-in-trade........." 7.4 In RBI's Master Circular, under the caption 2 Classification, it has been mentioned thus— "(i) The entire investment portfolio of the banks (including SLR securities and non-SLR securities) should be classified under three categories viz., 'Held to maturity', 'Available for Sale' and 'Held

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

prices or market value whichever is lower by treating such stock-in-trade........." 7.4 In RBI's Master Circular, under the caption 2 Classification, it has been mentioned thus— "(i) The entire investment portfolio of the banks (including SLR securities and non-SLR securities) should be classified under three categories viz., 'Held to maturity', 'Available for Sale' and 'Held

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

prices or market value whichever is lower by treating such stock-in-trade........." 7.4 In RBI's Master Circular, under the caption 2 Classification, it has been mentioned thus— "(i) The entire investment portfolio of the banks (including SLR securities and non-SLR securities) should be classified under three categories viz., 'Held to maturity', 'Available for Sale' and 'Held

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

prices or market value whichever is lower by treating such stock-in-trade........." 7.4 In RBI's Master Circular, under the caption 2 Classification, it has been mentioned thus— "(i) The entire investment portfolio of the banks (including SLR securities and non-SLR securities) should be classified under three categories viz., 'Held to maturity', 'Available for Sale' and 'Held

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

prices or market value whichever is lower by treating such stock-in-trade........." 7.4 In RBI's Master Circular, under the caption 2 Classification, it has been mentioned thus— "(i) The entire investment portfolio of the banks (including SLR securities and non-SLR securities) should be classified under three categories viz., 'Held to maturity', 'Available for Sale' and 'Held

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

43. We now proceed to adjudicate the next consolidated group of eight appeals pertaining to Sahakari Khand Udhyog Mandali Ltd. (supra) covering AYs 2011-12 to 2014-15, wherein for each assessment year there exist cross-appeals—one by the Revenue challenging the partial relief granted by the CIT(A), and the corresponding appeal by the assessee contesting the portion

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.

transferred the equity shares of Survika Vinimay Pvt Ltd, which were purchased at a premium of Rs.187/- to Directors and group companies of Sumeet Group namely Betex India Ltd and Ambaji Syntex Pvt. Ltd. at Rs.10/- which was the face value of shares of Survika Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. By this Sumeet Group companies and its directors have got control over

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.

transferred the equity shares of Survika Vinimay Pvt Ltd, which were purchased at a premium of Rs.187/- to Directors and group companies of Sumeet Group namely Betex India Ltd and Ambaji Syntex Pvt. Ltd. at Rs.10/- which was the face value of shares of Survika Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. By this Sumeet Group companies and its directors have got control over

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.

transferred the equity shares of Survika Vinimay Pvt Ltd, which were purchased at a premium of Rs.187/- to Directors and group companies of Sumeet Group namely Betex India Ltd and Ambaji Syntex Pvt. Ltd. at Rs.10/- which was the face value of shares of Survika Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. By this Sumeet Group companies and its directors have got control over

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

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

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

43(2) is an allowable expense in mercantile system of accounting. 10. The ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in Kolhapur Zilla Sahkari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. [2023] 152 taxmann.com 129 (SC)/[2023] 293 Taxman 603 (SC), while affirming the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

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

43(2) is an allowable expense in mercantile system of accounting. 10. The ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in Kolhapur Zilla Sahkari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. [2023] 152 taxmann.com 129 (SC)/[2023] 293 Taxman 603 (SC), while affirming the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

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

43(2) is an allowable expense in mercantile system of accounting. 10. The ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in Kolhapur Zilla Sahkari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. [2023] 152 taxmann.com 129 (SC)/[2023] 293 Taxman 603 (SC), while affirming the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

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 92-B of the IT Act and the transfer pricing provisions are not applicable as there is no income. Therefore, considering the same, as the assessee has also given loan to obtain the benefits of full profits earned by the subsidiary and to ensure full control over the operations of the subsidiary. Therefore, this is not comparable

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 92-B of the IT Act and the transfer pricing provisions are not applicable as there is no income. Therefore, considering the same, as the assessee has also given loan to obtain the benefits of full profits earned by the subsidiary and to ensure full control over the operations of the subsidiary. Therefore, this is not comparable