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

reassessment order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

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

reassessment order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

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

reassessment order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

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

reassessment order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

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

reassessment order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

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

reassessment order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

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

reassessment order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

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

reassessment order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

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

reassessment order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

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

reassessment order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

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

reassessment order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

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

reassessment order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

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"

reassessment as the case may be. In case AO has not done so, the order framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act becomes invalid. ITA Nos.31,32 & 38to40/Rjt/2020 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13 7 13. Now coming to second question whether the notice under section 143(2) issued beyond the statutory time limit provided

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"

reassessment as the case may be. In case AO has not done so, the order framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act becomes invalid. ITA Nos.31,32 & 38to40/Rjt/2020 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13 7 13. Now coming to second question whether the notice under section 143(2) issued beyond the statutory time limit provided

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

20,000/- suo motto based on its estimated profit from shipping business without making any set-off from its share trading losses. It is also pertinent to note that self assessment tax was paid while filing original return. Thus, it leads to a situation where if no reassessment proceedings would have been initiated against assessee then he was content with

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

20,000/- suo motto based on its estimated profit from shipping business without making any set-off from its share trading losses. It is also pertinent to note that self assessment tax was paid while filing original return. Thus, it leads to a situation where if no reassessment proceedings would have been initiated against assessee then he was content with

SHRI MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN ,GANDHIDHAM vs. THEACIT, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

20,000/- suo motto based on its estimated profit from shipping business without making any set-off from its share trading losses. It is also pertinent to note that self assessment tax was paid while filing original return. Thus, it leads to a situation where if no reassessment proceedings would have been initiated against assessee then he was content with

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

20,000/- suo motto based on its estimated profit from shipping business without making any set-off from its share trading losses. It is also pertinent to note that self assessment tax was paid while filing original return. Thus, it leads to a situation where if no reassessment proceedings would have been initiated against assessee then he was content with