SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

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

reassessment under Section 148 within the prescribed time limits. Further, Section 151 requires assessing officers to obtain sanction of the specified authority before issuing notice under Section 148. In Chhugamal Rajpal v. S P Chaliha, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that Section 151 must be strictly adhered to because it contains "important safeguards." 65 Section 151 imposes

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

4. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in lead case in ITA 288/Rjt/2022 for Assessment Year 2013-14, are as follows: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in upholding the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in estimating suppressed sales

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

4. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in lead case in ITA 288/Rjt/2022 for Assessment Year 2013-14, are as follows: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in upholding the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in estimating suppressed sales

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

4. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in lead case in ITA 288/Rjt/2022 for Assessment Year 2013-14, are as follows: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in upholding the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in estimating suppressed sales

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

4. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in lead case in ITA 288/Rjt/2022 for Assessment Year 2013-14, are as follows: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in upholding the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in estimating suppressed sales

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

4. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in lead case in ITA 288/Rjt/2022 for Assessment Year 2013-14, are as follows: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in upholding the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in estimating suppressed sales

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

4. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in lead case in ITA 288/Rjt/2022 for Assessment Year 2013-14, are as follows: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in upholding the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in estimating suppressed sales

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

4. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in lead case in ITA 288/Rjt/2022 for Assessment Year 2013-14, are as follows: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in upholding the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in estimating suppressed sales

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

4. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in lead case in ITA 288/Rjt/2022 for Assessment Year 2013-14, are as follows: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in upholding the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in estimating suppressed sales

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

4. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in lead case in ITA 288/Rjt/2022 for Assessment Year 2013-14, are as follows: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in upholding the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in estimating suppressed sales

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

4. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in lead case in ITA 288/Rjt/2022 for Assessment Year 2013-14, are as follows: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in upholding the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in estimating suppressed sales

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

4. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in lead case in ITA 288/Rjt/2022 for Assessment Year 2013-14, are as follows: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in upholding the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in estimating suppressed sales

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

4. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in lead case in ITA 288/Rjt/2022 for Assessment Year 2013-14, are as follows: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in upholding the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in estimating suppressed sales

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

4. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in lead case in ITA 288/Rjt/2022 for Assessment Year 2013-14, are as follows: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in upholding the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in estimating suppressed sales

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

4. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in lead case in ITA 288/Rjt/2022 for Assessment Year 2013-14, are as follows: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in upholding the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in estimating suppressed sales

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH, RAJKOT

4,20,34,650/- (Rs. 11,55,00,000- Rs.\n7,34,65,350)that is, 57% higher. This also shows that there is no scope of alleged\non-money receipts and hence, all the allegations in the impugned SCN are merely\non the basis of assumptions and presumptions. It may be appreciated that even\nu/s 43CA

THE ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI VICKY BALKRISHNA MEHTA, RAJKOT

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal"नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Vicky Balkrishna Mehta, Income-Tax, 7Th Floor, Mansrovar Central Circle-2, Apartment, Royal Park, Rajkot Kalawad Road, Rajkot Pan : Agqpm 6495 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 22.01.2020 Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2004-05. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:

reassessment proceedings initiated for the same assessment year as in the present case, i.e. AY 2004-05, were also quashed by the ITAT for 4 ACIT Vs. Shri Vicky Balkrishna Mehta AY : 2004-05 identical reasons noting that the notice issued was beyond the period prescribed under law, i.e. it was beyond limitation. The order of the ITAT holding

SHRI GIRISHBHAI NANJIBHAI SOLANKI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2), RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 31 & 32/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Years:2011-12, 2012-13 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

4 beyond the time limit prescribed under the Act. As per the learned DR, it is not the case here that the notice was not issued under section 143(2) of the Act. Accordingly, such defect can be cured under the provisions of section 292BB of the Act in view of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

SHRI GIRISHBHAI NANJIBHAI SOLANKI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2), RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 31 & 32/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Years:2011-12, 2012-13 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

4 beyond the time limit prescribed under the Act. As per the learned DR, it is not the case here that the notice was not issued under section 143(2) of the Act. Accordingly, such defect can be cured under the provisions of section 292BB of the Act in view of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India