PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

house property, it is to submit that during\nthe course of assessment proceedings, I had suo-moto offered deemed rental income\nof Rs. 72.000/-p.a. looking to the locality and standardized rent in the area. However,\nwhile finalizing the assessment for the year under consideration, an addition of Rs.\n1,80,000/- was made without bringing any credible evidence

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

house property, it is to submit that during\nthe course of assessment proceedings, I had suo-moto offered deemed rental income\nof Rs. 72.000/-p.a. looking to the locality and standardized rent in the area. However,\nwhile finalizing the assessment for the year under consideration, an addition of Rs.\n1,80,000/- was made without bringing any credible evidence

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACTIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

house property, it is to submit that during\nthe course of assessment proceedings, I had suo-moto offered deemed rental income\nof Rs. 72.000/-p.a. looking to the locality and standardized rent in the area. However,\nwhile finalizing the assessment for the year under consideration, an addition of Rs.\n1,80,000/- was made without bringing any credible evidence

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

house property, it is to submit that during\nthe course of assessment proceedings, I had suo-moto offered deemed rental income\nof Rs. 72.000/-p.a. looking to the locality and standardized rent in the area. However,\nwhile finalizing the assessment for the year under consideration, an addition of Rs.\n1,80,000/- was made without bringing any credible evidence

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

house property, it is to submit that during\nthe course of assessment proceedings, I had suo-moto offered deemed rental income\nof Rs. 72.000/-p.a. looking to the locality and standardized rent in the area. However,\nwhile finalizing the assessment for the year under consideration, an addition of Rs.\n1,80,000/- was made without bringing any credible evidence

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

153 of IT Act. Thus, the assessment is quashed.” 4. Aggrieved against the common Appellate orders, the Revenue are in Appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeals: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that any addition during the assessment u/s.153A

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

153 of IT Act. Thus, the assessment is quashed.” 4. Aggrieved against the common Appellate orders, the Revenue are in Appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeals: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that any addition during the assessment u/s.153A

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

153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated\nunder section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned\nunder section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall-\n(a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be\nspecified

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

153 Taxman 13held that the income cannot be estimated for the period for which no information is available on the basis of the seized record.  Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of CIT v. H.C. Chandna (P.) Ltd. [2007] 163 Taxman 654 (Delhi) upheld the finding of the tribunal that no income can be estimated on the basis

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT LTD,RAJOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

153\nTaxman 13held that the income cannot be estimated for the period for which no\ninformation is available on the basis of the seized record.\n\n• Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of CIT v. H.C. Chandna (P.) Ltd. [2007] 163\nTaxman 654 (Delhi) upheld the finding of the tribunal that no income can be\nestimated

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

153\nTaxman 13held that the income cannot be estimated for the period for which no\ninformation is available on the basis of the seized record.\n\n•\nHon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of CIT v. H.C. Chandna (P.) Ltd. [2007] 163\nTaxman 654 (Delhi) upheld the finding of the tribunal that no income can be\nestimated

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SIX TWENTY REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

153\nTaxman 13held that the income cannot be estimated for the period for which no\ninformation is available on the basis of the seized record.\n\n• Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of CIT v. H.C. Chandna (P.) Ltd. [2007] 163\nTaxman 654 (Delhi) upheld the finding of the tribunal that no income can be\nestimated