M/S. GREEN EARTH BIOGAS PVT. LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

36(1)(iii) r.w Explanation 8 to\nSection 43(1) of the Act. The dropping of penalty in respect of amortization\nexpenses has resulted into loss to the revenue as the amount of penalty would\nhave positive revenue impact as per the provisions of Section 270A(10b) of the\nAct, which states that where the total income determined under clause

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

36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act” 25. Since, the legal grounds raised by the assessee, for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment year 2016–17, are similar and identical. Therefore, in order

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

36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act” 25. Since, the legal grounds raised by the assessee, for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment year 2016–17, are similar and identical. Therefore, in order

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

36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act” 25. Since, the legal grounds raised by the assessee, for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment year 2016–17, are similar and identical. Therefore, in order

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

36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act” 25. Since, the legal grounds raised by the assessee, for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment year 2016–17, are similar and identical. Therefore, in order

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

36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act” 25. Since, the legal grounds raised by the assessee, for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment year 2016–17, are similar and identical. Therefore, in order

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

36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act” 25. Since, the legal grounds raised by the assessee, for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment year 2016–17, are similar and identical. Therefore, in order

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

36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act” 25. Since, the legal grounds raised by the assessee, for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment year 2016–17, are similar and identical. Therefore, in order

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

36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act” 25. Since, the legal grounds raised by the assessee, for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment year 2016–17, are similar and identical. Therefore, in order

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

36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act” 25. Since, the legal grounds raised by the assessee, for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment year 2016–17, are similar and identical. Therefore, in order

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

36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act” 25. Since, the legal grounds raised by the assessee, for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment year 2016–17, are similar and identical. Therefore, in order

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

36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act” 25. Since, the legal grounds raised by the assessee, for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment year 2016–17, are similar and identical. Therefore, in order

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

36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act” 25. Since, the legal grounds raised by the assessee, for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment year 2016–17, are similar and identical. Therefore, in order

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

36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act” 25. Since, the legal grounds raised by the assessee, for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment year 2016–17, are similar and identical. Therefore, in order

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

36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act” 25. Since, the legal grounds raised by the assessee, for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment year 2016–17, are similar and identical. Therefore, in order

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

reassessment proceedings may be quashed.\n12. On merit, the assessee submitted before the assessing officer that sale of\nunits made to the members of Sonwani Family is at the value, which is far higher\n(almost 1.50 to 2 times) than the valuation prescribed by State Government for\nlevy of stamp duty, that is, Jantri Value / Circle Rate

MOHAN HARDASMAL TAHILYANI,GANDHIDHAM vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD 1 GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings\ninvalid for AY 2015-16, this limitation expired on 31st March 2019 w.e.f from 1 April\n2021.\n4. The Notice u/s 148 of the Act issued on or after 1st April 2021 for AY 2015-16 is\ninvalid as it does not fall within the relief period provide by the Taxation and Other\nLaws (Relaxation and Amendment

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

reassessment' cannot he reduced beyond the income originally assessed.' 14.9 In the light of above decision and after analyzing all the facts as discussed above, we find that the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction of the expenditures in respect of which the escaped income has sought to be assessed. The loss from the share trading activity has direct

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

reassessment' cannot he reduced beyond the income originally assessed.' 14.9 In the light of above decision and after analyzing all the facts as discussed above, we find that the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction of the expenditures in respect of which the escaped income has sought to be assessed. The loss from the share trading activity has direct