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

Section 92 of the Act, any cost incurred by the assessee company while providing any services or benefit to its AE, the same needs to be charged and recovered from the AE. The appellant company is wrong in submitting that since the ultimate benefit was for the assessee, this cost need not be recovered from the AE. The responsibility

BILAKHIA HOLDING P LTD,VAPI vs. THE JT.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

Section 92 of the Act, any cost incurred by the assessee company while providing any services or benefit to its AE, the same needs to be charged and recovered from the AE. The appellant company is wrong in submitting that since the ultimate benefit was for the assessee, this cost need not be recovered from the AE. The responsibility

M/S. BAYER VAPI PRIVATE LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES P. LTD.),VAPI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P. Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No’S.2886/Ahd/2010, 794/Ahd/2014 & 1769/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12 बनाम M/S. Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd. , Addl. Cit Range- ( Now Known As M/S. Bayer Vapi Vs. Vapi, Range Vapi Private Limited) 306/3,Phase-Ii Shivam Commercial Complex Gidc-1, Vapi Gujarat National Highway No 8 Vapi Pan: Aabcb 2100 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri A. Gopalakrishnan Aiyer - Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri O. P. Singh Cit (D.R.) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 26.09.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: 1. The Above Captioned Three Appeals For The Assessment Year 2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12 By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Dated 28.07.2010 & Dated 15.01.2014 Respectively Under The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] On The Direction Of Drp By The Addl. Cit Range-Vapi Range Vapi (Herein After Referred As The Ao) & The Appeal For The Assessment Year 2011-12 By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) Dated 29.04.2016. Since The Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed As Under: It(Tp)A No.2886/Ahd/2010/A.Y. 2006-07/ By The Assessee: 2. Ground Nos.1 Is General In Nature & Do Not Require Adjudication.

price is paid for the entire business as a whole. Hence, value to individual assets cannot be assigned directly. The valuation of intangible assets and marketing rights have been done in accordance with the Accounting Standard-10 (AS-10) issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) the company has assigned the values to the various assets

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

transfer of profits effected by payment of Sugarcane purchase price at the rate over and above the Fait ano Remunerative Price (FRP) holding that profit element embedded in the sugarcane purchase price paid to the member farmer is Rs.7,23,50,683/- @ Rs.75/- per MT for 9,64,675.77 MT sugarcane purchased from member farmers when deduction of Rs.75

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

M/S. MITSU PRIVATE LIMITED,,VAPI vs. THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

64. In appeal, the ld. CIT (A) has deleted the said disallowance by relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron & Engineering Co. v. CIT [2002] 253 ITR 749 [2002] 121 Taxman 43 (Guj) wherein it was held that public limited company is an inanimate person and there cannot

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. MITSU LIMITED,, DAMAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

64. In appeal, the ld. CIT (A) has deleted the said disallowance by relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron & Engineering Co. v. CIT [2002] 253 ITR 749 [2002] 121 Taxman 43 (Guj) wherein it was held that public limited company is an inanimate person and there cannot

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISES,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

transfer as defined in section 2(47) of the Act to the case of assessee for whom the plots of land Raj Enterprises (AY 2009-10 & 2010-11) are stock in trade. The provisions of section 2(47) apply to capital asset only and the action of the Assessing Officer is liable to be quashed which is inconsistent to provision

M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISE,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

transfer as defined in section 2(47) of the Act to the case of assessee for whom the plots of land Raj Enterprises (AY 2009-10 & 2010-11) are stock in trade. The provisions of section 2(47) apply to capital asset only and the action of the Assessing Officer is liable to be quashed which is inconsistent to provision

M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISE,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

transfer as defined in section 2(47) of the Act to the case of assessee for whom the plots of land Raj Enterprises (AY 2009-10 & 2010-11) are stock in trade. The provisions of section 2(47) apply to capital asset only and the action of the Assessing Officer is liable to be quashed which is inconsistent to provision

THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. N.R. AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, VAPI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) I.T.(Ss)A’S No.14,15,16/Ahd/2016, Ita’S No.1302,1303& 3032/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 09-10, 10-11; 2011-12,12-13& 2013-14 N.R.Agarwal Industries Ltd., Vs The Acit/Dcit, Circle-3, Plot No.169 To 169, Phase No.1, Surat. Gidc, Vapi. [Pan: Aaacn 7721 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F, where the transfer of such goods or services is a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA. 41 NR Aggarwal Industries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2013-14 57. By making reference of the above provision of section 80IA(8), the learned Counsel submits that it can be seen

N.R. AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VAPI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) I.T.(Ss)A’S No.14,15,16/Ahd/2016, Ita’S No.1302,1303& 3032/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 09-10, 10-11; 2011-12,12-13& 2013-14 N.R.Agarwal Industries Ltd., Vs The Acit/Dcit, Circle-3, Plot No.169 To 169, Phase No.1, Surat. Gidc, Vapi. [Pan: Aaacn 7721 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F, where the transfer of such goods or services is a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA. 41 NR Aggarwal Industries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2013-14 57. By making reference of the above provision of section 80IA(8), the learned Counsel submits that it can be seen

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

64 pages including the show cause notice and draft assessment order by the AO, written submission before AO and Ld. PCIT, relevant part of sale deed dated 16.08.2014, assessment orders of other co- owners for AYs 2014015 and 2015016 and assessment order of assessee for AY 2015-16. He submitted that the AO had issued an exhaustive show cause notice

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)

64 to 66 of the paper book. It is, therefore, clear that the AO did not ask any question about the cash deposit of Rs. 1,23,93,591/- in Axis bank Account of the Assessee. Since it was a complete scrutiny, the AO should have made inquiries and verification regarding the huge cash deposit

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI vs. WHEEL FLEXIBLE PACKAGING, DADRA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1063/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Wheel Flexible Packaging, Income-Tax, Vapi Circle, C-24/25, Zero Tax Industrial Estate, Fortune Square Ii, 7Th Vs. Dadra, Dadra & Nagar Haveli –396230 Floor, Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396 191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafw 2971 Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer in this regard. 6. The respondent craves to add, amend, modify or alter the above grounds of cross objection at any stage of appellate proceedings. 7. The respondent humbly prays that the cross objection be accepted in too and the appeal filed by the petitioner be dismissed.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed

THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(3),, SURAT vs. SHRI RAMESHBHAI VALLABHBHAI GAJERA,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1522/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-3(2)(3), Vs. Rameshbhai Vallabhbhai Gajera, Surat. 153, Vaikunthdham Society, Laxmikant Ashram Road, Katargam, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abapg3846B (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/01/2023

section 142(1) of the I.T. Act was issued on 26.12.2013 and 04.12.2014 for calling various details. The assessing officer observed that in the ITA No.1522/SRT/2017/AY.2012-13 Rameshbhai Vallabhbhai Gajera computation of the total income the assessee has shown to have sold land at sales consideration of Rs.65,97,700/-. The assessee has shown to have purchased part of land