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’).

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of the Arm's length as per the provisions of section 92CA of the I.T.Act, 1961. Accordingly the order u/s 92CA(3) passed by the TPO dated 24.01.2013 has been received on 28.01.2013. In view of the same final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act was passed on 11.03.2013. The addition

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. ANTRIX DIAMOND EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, these three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.176 To 178/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-3, Vs. Antrix Diamond Exports Pvt. Ltd., Surat. 1006, Free Press Mark, Raheja Centre Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaca3403G (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Ms Ekta Sanghvi, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 21/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

transfer pricing proceedings. Consequently, the TPO also levied penalty u/s.271G of the I.T. Act. The ld DR pointed out that Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the penalty of Rs.5,23,62,122/- on account of International Transactions of Rs.2,61,81,06,063/-. The Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in allowing benefit to assessee that peculiar facts related

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. ANTRIX DIAMOND EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, these three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.176 To 178/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-3, Vs. Antrix Diamond Exports Pvt. Ltd., Surat. 1006, Free Press Mark, Raheja Centre Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaca3403G (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Ms Ekta Sanghvi, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 21/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

transfer pricing proceedings. Consequently, the TPO also levied penalty u/s.271G of the I.T. Act. The ld DR pointed out that Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the penalty of Rs.5,23,62,122/- on account of International Transactions of Rs.2,61,81,06,063/-. The Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in allowing benefit to assessee that peculiar facts related

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. ANTRIX DIAMOND EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, these three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.176 To 178/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-3, Vs. Antrix Diamond Exports Pvt. Ltd., Surat. 1006, Free Press Mark, Raheja Centre Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaca3403G (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Ms Ekta Sanghvi, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 21/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

transfer pricing proceedings. Consequently, the TPO also levied penalty u/s.271G of the I.T. Act. The ld DR pointed out that Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the penalty of Rs.5,23,62,122/- on account of International Transactions of Rs.2,61,81,06,063/-. The Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in allowing benefit to assessee that peculiar facts related

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)

section 92CA(3) of the Act on 30.10.2018, and quantified an upward adjustment at Rs.2,81,77,494/- on ITA. 329/SRT/2022 & Co. 16/SRT/2022 V R Surat Pvt. Ltd. the international transactions entered into by the assessee. That is, an upward adjustment was made by TPO/assessing officer to the income shown by the assessee of Rs.2,81,77,794/- by reducing

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

81,34,01,857/- 31/03/2012 (Rs.)-As per P&L Account for F.Y. 2011-12 Sugar purchased during the year (MT)-As per P&L 667974.92 MT Account for F.Y. 2011-12 Average purchase price per MT 2714.78 SMP/FRP for the period 01/04/2011 to 31/03/2012 vide 1832.00 Notification No. G.S.R.428(E)/Ess. Com./Sugarcane dated 05/06/2012 Excess payment over SMP/FRP

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

81,34,01,857/- 31/03/2012 (Rs.)-As per P&L Account for F.Y. 2011-12 Sugar purchased during the year (MT)-As per P&L 667974.92 MT Account for F.Y. 2011-12 Average purchase price per MT 2714.78 SMP/FRP for the period 01/04/2011 to 31/03/2012 vide 1832.00 Notification No. G.S.R.428(E)/Ess. Com./Sugarcane dated 05/06/2012 Excess payment over SMP/FRP

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

81,34,01,857/- 31/03/2012 (Rs.)-As per P&L Account for F.Y. 2011-12 Sugar purchased during the year (MT)-As per P&L 667974.92 MT Account for F.Y. 2011-12 Average purchase price per MT 2714.78 SMP/FRP for the period 01/04/2011 to 31/03/2012 vide 1832.00 Notification No. G.S.R.428(E)/Ess. Com./Sugarcane dated 05/06/2012 Excess payment over SMP/FRP

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

transfer are treated as revenue receipts and treated as business income. Therefore, the action of the AO is merely based on presumption basis. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT (A), accordingly, same is upheld. This ground of appeal is therefore, dismissed. 73. Ground No. 4 states that the ld. CIT (A) has erred

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

transfer are treated as revenue receipts and treated as business income. Therefore, the action of the AO is merely based on presumption basis. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT (A), accordingly, same is upheld. This ground of appeal is therefore, dismissed. 73. Ground No. 4 states that the ld. CIT (A) has erred

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

price of the plots. 3. The Revenue in its Cross appeal for the A.Y. 2010-11 has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.25,34,125/- for AY 2009-10* and Rs.4

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

price of the plots. 3. The Revenue in its Cross appeal for the A.Y. 2010-11 has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.25,34,125/- for AY 2009-10* and Rs.4

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

price of the plots. 3. The Revenue in its Cross appeal for the A.Y. 2010-11 has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.25,34,125/- for AY 2009-10* and Rs.4

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

81 taxmann.com 292 Gujarat High Court). 13. On the other hand the ld CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of assessing officer and the order of ld. CIT(A) in the first round of appeal. 14. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the orders of ld. CIT(A) in first as well

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

81 taxmann.com 292 Gujarat High Court). 13. On the other hand the ld CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of assessing officer and the order of ld. CIT(A) in the first round of appeal. 14. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the orders of ld. CIT(A) in first as well

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

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

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’.

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

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’.

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

SHREE SALASAR SAREES,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1154/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Salasar Sarees Vs. Ito, D-1401, Raghukul Textile Market, Ward – 1(2)(6), Ring Road, Surat – 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abqfs5653Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2025

81,829/- and expenses towards transfer of Rs.4,00,000/- against the sale consideration of land of Rs.23,80,000/-, thereby claimed a long-term capital loss of Rs.1,820/- in the return of income. Since the assessee failed to substantiate his claim of expense of Rs.4,00,000/- incurred on account of transfer of land; therefore, the AO disallowed