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

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

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.

transfer pricing adjustment can be made. This proviso was substituted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 w. e. f. 01-10-2009. Explanation to sub-section (2) of section 92C has clarified : "that the provisions of the second proviso shall also be applicable to all assessment or reassessment proceedings pending before the Assessing Officer as on 1st October

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO for short) for determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP for short) in respect of International Transactions only. The report of TPO was 3 Hubergroup India Pvt. Ltd. received on 31.03.2021 in suggesting certain upward adjustment of Rs.12.58 crores in respect of International Transactions. Accordingly, such upward adjustment was added in the assessment order. However, with

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)

65,07,780/- i.e. 12.58% p.a instead of Rs.17,46,85,274/- i.e. 15% p.a as determined by the assessee. The facts of the case are that assessee had issued FCCDs of Rs.188.5 crore in the financial year (FY) 2011-12, for business expansion purpose to a group entity, M/s Vassam Ltd or Cyprus. These debentures were later transferred

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

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

65. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. CIT (DR) relied on the AO and submitted that the assessee company itself admitted that log-book is not maintained and disallowed Rs. 50,000 on this account. Page 38 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

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

65. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. CIT (DR) relied on the AO and submitted that the assessee company itself admitted that log-book is not maintained and disallowed Rs. 50,000 on this account. Page 38 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

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

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

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

KETAN LALITBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(2),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1216/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13 Shri Ketan Lalitbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bawaliya Faliya At&Post Ward 2(3)(2) Surat Abhava Taluka Choryashi District Surat 395007 Pan: Aorpp 4348B अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

65,000 purchased on 19.10.2011 at land at Karvada village and made a claim of deduction under section 54B of the Act. However, the AO did not accept the revised claim as revised return was filed late, hence, it was not found acceptable in the light of decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India

SHRI MUKESH N. DESAI,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2,, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Ram Lal Negi & Shri O. P. Meena

transfer by an amount of not less than 15 per cent of value so declared. Therefore, the AO ought to have referred the property for valuation if he was of the view that fair market value of property was higher than disclosed in sale deed. Further the cash balance and cash withdrawals of Rs.40,40,000 during the assessment year

WIND FINANCIAL SERVICES LLP,DAMAN & DIU vs. PCIT, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.501 & 502/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Wind Financial Services Llp, Vs. The Pcit, [Formerly Known Wind Financial Valsad Services Pvt. Ltd.] Shop No.102/A, 436 Sq Feet Built Up, Dabhel, Daman & Diu, Valsad – 396215 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfw6369H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri S. N. Divetia, Ar Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From The Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad [In Short, ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 16.03.2024 For Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since Facts Of The Cases & The Grounds Taken Up In The Appeals Are Similar Except Variation In The Amount, These Appeals Were Heard Together & A Common Order Is Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. Ita No. 501/Srt/2024 Is Taken As The ‘Lead Case’.

65,520/-; hence, the order is also prejudicial to the interests of revenue. He has relied on the decision in cases of CIT vs. Puspa Devi, 29 Taxman 377 (Pat.), CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd., 242 ITR 490 (Mad.), CIT vs. Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation, 186 Taxman 105 (HP) and CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan, 240 Taxman