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

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. 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

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

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, 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. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.185/Rjt/2023

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