MICRO INKS PVT. LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS MICRO INKS LTD.),VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ( INTL. TAXN.), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2375/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, V Micro Inks Limited, (International Taxation), Surat. S. Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2707/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Micro Inks Limited, V The Income Tax Officer, Bilakhia House, Muktanand S. (International Taxation), Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. Surat. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Gopala Krishnan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020

Pricing requirement, the Appellant company reimbursed the actual cost of such data usage without any additional mark up. In this manner it was submitted that the non-resident company has not earned any income by virtue of this reimbursement of expenses. 8.3 The Learned Assessing Officer has relied upon the decision of Honorable Madras High Court in the case

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

9,345,000 2028 Total(Rs) 504,960,000 4,960,000 500,000,000 446,330,000 53,670,000 11. On perusal of the aforesaid details, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that premium amount of Rs.49.65 lacs as shown in the column No.4 is not eligible for deduction as the assessee is not claiming premium

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

9,345,000 2028 Total(Rs) 504,960,000 4,960,000 500,000,000 446,330,000 53,670,000 11. On perusal of the aforesaid details, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that premium amount of Rs.49.65 lacs as shown in the column No.4 is not eligible for deduction as the assessee is not claiming premium

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

9,345,000 2028 Total(Rs) 504,960,000 4,960,000 500,000,000 446,330,000 53,670,000 11. On perusal of the aforesaid details, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that premium amount of Rs.49.65 lacs as shown in the column No.4 is not eligible for deduction as the assessee is not claiming premium

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

9,345,000 2028 Total(Rs) 504,960,000 4,960,000 500,000,000 446,330,000 53,670,000 11. On perusal of the aforesaid details, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that premium amount of Rs.49.65 lacs as shown in the column No.4 is not eligible for deduction as the assessee is not claiming premium

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

9,345,000 2028 Total(Rs) 504,960,000 4,960,000 500,000,000 446,330,000 53,670,000 11. On perusal of the aforesaid details, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that premium amount of Rs.49.65 lacs as shown in the column No.4 is not eligible for deduction as the assessee is not claiming premium

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

9,345,000 2028 Total(Rs) 504,960,000 4,960,000 500,000,000 446,330,000 53,670,000 11. On perusal of the aforesaid details, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that premium amount of Rs.49.65 lacs as shown in the column No.4 is not eligible for deduction as the assessee is not claiming premium

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

9,345,000 2028 Total(Rs) 504,960,000 4,960,000 500,000,000 446,330,000 53,670,000 11. On perusal of the aforesaid details, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that premium amount of Rs.49.65 lacs as shown in the column No.4 is not eligible for deduction as the assessee is not claiming premium

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

9,345,000 2028 Total(Rs) 504,960,000 4,960,000 500,000,000 446,330,000 53,670,000 11. On perusal of the aforesaid details, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that premium amount of Rs.49.65 lacs as shown in the column No.4 is not eligible for deduction as the assessee is not claiming premium

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

9 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and hence, the AO's disallowance\n6\nof portion of the cane price confirmed by the C.I.T. (Appeals) ignoring the\nfact of payment of cane price made for the year out of commercial\nexpediency, being without jurisdiction, arbitrary or based on irrelevant or\nextraneous consideration, unfair, subjective, irrational, bad in law, invalid

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

9 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and hence, the AO's disallowance\nof portion of the cane price confirmed by the C.I.T. (Appeals) ignoring the\nfact of payment of cane price made for the year out of commercial\nexpediency, being without jurisdiction, arbitrary or based on irrelevant or\nextraneous consideration, unfair, subjective, irrational, bad in law, invalid,\nvoid

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

9 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and hence, the AO's disallowance\nof portion of the cane price confirmed by the C.I.T. (Appeals) ignoring the\nfact of payment of cane price made for the year out of commercial\nexpediency, being without jurisdiction, arbitrary or based on irrelevant or\nextraneous consideration, unfair, subjective, irrational, bad in law, invalid,\nvoid

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

9 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and hence, the AO's disallowance\nof portion of the cane price confirmed by the C.I.T. (Appeals) ignoring the\nfact of payment of cane price made for the year out of commercial\nexpediency, being without jurisdiction, arbitrary or based on irrelevant or\nextraneous consideration, unfair, subjective, irrational, bad in law, invalid,\nvoid

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

9 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and hence, the AO's disallowance\nof portion of the cane price confirmed by the C.I.T. (Appeals) ignoring the\nfact of payment of cane price made for the year out of commercial\nexpediency, being without jurisdiction, arbitrary or based on irrelevant or\nextraneous consideration, unfair, subjective, irrational, bad in law, invalid,\nvoid

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

9 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and hence, the AO's disallowance\nof portion of the cane price confirmed by the C.I.T. (Appeals) ignoring the\nfact of payment of cane price made for the year out of commercial\nexpediency, being without jurisdiction, arbitrary or based on irrelevant or\nextraneous consideration, unfair, subjective, irrational, bad in law, invalid,\nvoid

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

9 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and hence, the AO's disallowance\nof portion of the cane price confirmed by the C.I.T. (Appeals) ignoring the\nfact of payment of cane price made for the year out of commercial\nexpediency, being without jurisdiction, arbitrary or based on irrelevant or\nextraneous consideration, unfair, subjective, irrational, bad in law, invalid,\nvoid

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.

9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.69/SRT/2021 and IT(SS)A No.70/SRT/2021, are dismissed. The Revenue’s appeal in IT(SS)A No. 75/SRT/2021, IT(SS)A No.76/SRT/2021 and ITA No.52/SRT/2022 are also dismissed. 10. The common ground no.2, raised by the Revenue, is reproduced below for ready reference and adjudication. “2. Common Ground No.2

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.

9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.69/SRT/2021 and IT(SS)A No.70/SRT/2021, are dismissed. The Revenue’s appeal in IT(SS)A No. 75/SRT/2021, IT(SS)A No.76/SRT/2021 and ITA No.52/SRT/2022 are also dismissed. 10. The common ground no.2, raised by the Revenue, is reproduced below for ready reference and adjudication. “2. Common Ground No.2

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.

9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.69/SRT/2021 and IT(SS)A No.70/SRT/2021, are dismissed. The Revenue’s appeal in IT(SS)A No. 75/SRT/2021, IT(SS)A No.76/SRT/2021 and ITA No.52/SRT/2022 are also dismissed. 10. The common ground no.2, raised by the Revenue, is reproduced below for ready reference and adjudication. “2. Common Ground No.2