DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT vs. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD., RJAKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 41(1) Total 17,39,72,425 Relevant Provision of the Income-tax Act 31. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition, observing as follows: “5.13 Having considered the various discrepancies found noted in the impounded papers and in absence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 41(1) Total 17,39,72,425 Relevant Provision of the Income-tax Act 31. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition, observing as follows: “5.13 Having considered the various discrepancies found noted in the impounded papers and in absence

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 41(1) Total 17,39,72,425 Relevant Provision of the Income-tax Act 31. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition, observing as follows: “5.13 Having considered the various discrepancies found noted in the impounded papers and in absence

M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 41(1) Total 17,39,72,425 Relevant Provision of the Income-tax Act 31. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition, observing as follows: “5.13 Having considered the various discrepancies found noted in the impounded papers and in absence

M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 41(1) Total 17,39,72,425 Relevant Provision of the Income-tax Act 31. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition, observing as follows: “5.13 Having considered the various discrepancies found noted in the impounded papers and in absence

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 41(1) Total 17,39,72,425 Relevant Provision of the Income-tax Act 31. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition, observing as follows: “5.13 Having considered the various discrepancies found noted in the impounded papers and in absence

M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 41(1) Total 17,39,72,425 Relevant Provision of the Income-tax Act 31. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition, observing as follows: “5.13 Having considered the various discrepancies found noted in the impounded papers and in absence

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 41(1) Total 17,39,72,425 Relevant Provision of the Income-tax Act 31. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition, observing as follows: “5.13 Having considered the various discrepancies found noted in the impounded papers and in absence

CLASSIC NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 41(1) Total 17,39,72,425 Relevant Provision of the Income-tax Act 31. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition, observing as follows: “5.13 Having considered the various discrepancies found noted in the impounded papers and in absence

CLASSIC NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 41(1) Total 17,39,72,425 Relevant Provision of the Income-tax Act 31. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition, observing as follows: “5.13 Having considered the various discrepancies found noted in the impounded papers and in absence

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 41(1) Total 17,39,72,425 Relevant Provision of the Income-tax Act 31. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition, observing as follows: “5.13 Having considered the various discrepancies found noted in the impounded papers and in absence

CLASSIC NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 41(1) Total 17,39,72,425 Relevant Provision of the Income-tax Act 31. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition, observing as follows: “5.13 Having considered the various discrepancies found noted in the impounded papers and in absence

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI BHAGVANJI PRABHUBHAI AMRUTIYA, MORBI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

bogus purchase u/s 37 of the Act. 35. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who has deleted the addition made by the assessing officer. Therefore, the revenue and assessee both are in appeal before us. ACIT Vs. Expert Particle Board and Others ITA No.139 /RJT/2021 and 142/RJT/2021

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. EXPERT PARTICLE BOARD, MORBI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

bogus purchase u/s 37 of the Act. 35. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who has deleted the addition made by the assessing officer. Therefore, the revenue and assessee both are in appeal before us. ACIT Vs. Expert Particle Board and Others ITA No.139 /RJT/2021 and 142/RJT/2021

MISS PARI ANIL GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Purchase, (2)\nHolding period, and (3) Sale and then after held that in the present case,\neven the requisite documentary evidences are found lacking which left the\nassessment not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of\nrevenue.Moreover, as per the report of investigation wing, if any\nconnivance with any commission agent or entry operator is found then

LATE SMT. PRITI A. GANDHI L/R. SHRI ANILBHAI A. GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Purchase, (2)\nHolding period, and (3) Sale and then after held that in the present case,\neven the requisite documentary evidences are found lacking which left the\nassessment not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of\nrevenue.Moreover, as per the report of investigation wing, if any\nconnivance with any commission agent or entry operator is found then

SHRI SHAMJIBHAI SADHABHAI KANGAD,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , RAJKOT

section 132A, then, the provisions of sub-section (1) shall\napply as if such books of account, other documents or assets which had been taken into custody from\nthe person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), as the case may be, of sub-section (1) of\nsection 132A, had been found in the possession

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. SIYARAM METAL UDYOG PVT. LTD.,, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

purchase at Rs.72240 at 0.24% as against Rs. 18,06,014/- estimated by the A.O. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 4) It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that