SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAMNAGAR, JAMANGAR

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed

35,726/- against returned income of Rs. 49,85,50,620/- and determining the Book\nprofit u/s 115JB of the Act at Rs. 45,58,90,530/-against Returned Book loss of\nRs.28,40,37,610/-.\n2. Grounds of Appeal in relation to computation of book profit u/s 115JB\nHon. CIT(A) erred in law as well as in facts

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

1)(b) has been followed by taking\napproval from the specified authority. However, as submitted above, there is no\nmention of asset or expenditure represented by the alleged-escaped income and\nhence, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is barred by the limitation period of\ntime prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act.In view of the above

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH, RAJKOT

1)(b) has been followed by taking\napproval from the specified authority. However, as submitted above, there is no\nmention of asset or expenditure represented by the alleged-escaped income and\nhence, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is barred by the limitation period of\ntime prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act.In view of the above

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

1)(b) has been followed by taking\napproval from the specified authority. However, as submitted above, there is no\nmention of asset or expenditure represented by the alleged-escaped income and\nhence, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is barred by the limitation period of\ntime prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act.In view of the above

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, RAJKOT., RAJKOT

1)(b) has been followed by taking\napproval from the specified authority. However, as submitted above, there is no\nmention of asset or expenditure represented by the alleged-escaped income and\nhence, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is barred by the limitation period of\ntime prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act.In view of the above

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

1)(b) has been followed by taking\napproval from the specified authority. However, as submitted above, there is no\nmention of asset or expenditure represented by the alleged-escaped income and\nhence, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is barred by the limitation period of\ntime prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act.In view of the above

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

1)(b) has been followed by taking\napproval from the specified authority. However, as submitted above, there is no\nmention of asset or expenditure represented by the alleged-escaped income and\nhence, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is barred by the limitation period of\ntime prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act.In view of the above

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

1. It is respectfully submitted that, the apart from the issue pertaining to the unsigned approval memo, the said approval is invalid and bad-in-law due to the non-application of mind by the designated authority before granting approval. 2. The reasons recorded by the designated authority while granting the approval nowhere suggests that, he has perused

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

1. It is respectfully submitted that, the apart from the issue pertaining to the unsigned approval memo, the said approval is invalid and bad-in-law due to the non-application of mind by the designated authority before granting approval. 2. The reasons recorded by the designated authority while granting the approval nowhere suggests that, he has perused

HETALKUMAR PRAVINCHANDRA RAJYAGURU,RAJKOT vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

35,50,792/-, that the\nsaid disclosure has been made by the assessee after examining the loose\npaper file found during the survey which was inventoried as annexure BF-\n1/6 found from the office premises of the assessee during the survey\nproceedings. As per the explanation given by the assessee in his statement,\nthe noting in the loose paper contained

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)

35 ACIT vs. Shri Rajeshkumat G. Patel definition that to constitute an act of giving false evidence, a person must make a statement which is either false to the knowledge or belief of the maker or which the maker does not believe to be true. Further, it requires that such a statement is made by a person (1

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)

35 ACIT vs. Shri Rajeshkumat G. Patel definition that to constitute an act of giving false evidence, a person must make a statement which is either false to the knowledge or belief of the maker or which the maker does not believe to be true. Further, it requires that such a statement is made by a person (1

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

1,56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed.” 32. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 33. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, begins

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

1,56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed.” 32. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 33. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, begins

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

1,56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed.” 32. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 33. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, begins

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

1,56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed.” 32. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 33. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, begins

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

1,56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed.” 32. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 33. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, begins

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

1,56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed.” 32. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 33. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, begins

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

1,56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed.” 32. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 33. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, begins