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

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

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

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

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

43(3)\nr.w.s. 254 of the Act which is the subject matter of appeal by the assessee.\n5.\nAll the grounds raised by the assessee, though numerous and\narticulated from different legal and factual perspectives, cumulatively\nrevolve around a single core dispute, namely the allowability of the FCP/\nadditional sugarcane price paid over and above the FRP to cane growers

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

43(3)\nr.w.s. 254 of the Act which is the subject matter of appeal by the assessee.\n5. All the grounds raised by the assessee, though numerous and\narticulated from different legal and factual perspectives, cumulatively\nrevolve around a single core dispute, namely the allowability of the FCP/\nadditional sugarcane price paid over and above the FRP to cane growers

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

43(3)\nr.w.s. 254 of the Act which is the subject matter of appeal by the assessee.\n5.\nAll the grounds raised by the assessee, though numerous and\narticulated from different legal and factual perspectives, cumulatively\nrevolve around a single core dispute, namely the allowability of the FCP/\nadditional sugarcane price paid over and above the FRP to cane growers

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

43(3)\nr.w.s. 254 of the Act which is the subject matter of appeal by the assessee.\n5.\nAll the grounds raised by the assessee, though numerous and\narticulated from different legal and factual perspectives, cumulatively\nrevolve around a single core dispute, namely the allowability of the FCP/\nadditional sugarcane price paid over and above the FRP to cane growers

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

43(3)\nr.w.s. 254 of the Act which is the subject matter of appeal by the assessee.\n5. All the grounds raised by the assessee, though numerous and\narticulated from different legal and factual perspectives, cumulatively\nrevolve around a single core dispute, namely the allowability of the FCP/\nadditional sugarcane price paid over and above the FRP to cane growers

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

43(3)\nr.w.s. 254 of the Act which is the subject matter of appeal by the assessee.\n5.\nAll the grounds raised by the assessee, though numerous and\narticulated from different legal and factual perspectives, cumulatively\nrevolve around a single core dispute, namely the allowability of the FCP/\nadditional sugarcane price paid over and above the FRP to cane growers

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

43(3)\nr.w.s. 254 of the Act which is the subject matter of appeal by the assessee.\n5. All the grounds raised by the assessee, though numerous and\narticulated from different legal and factual perspectives, cumulatively\nrevolve around a single core dispute, namely the allowability of the FCP/\nadditional sugarcane price paid over and above the FRP to cane growers

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