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:

ii) of the new Act, the ITO cannot issue a notice under s. 148 in order to reopen the assessment of an assessee in a case where the right to reopen the assessment was barred under the old Act at the date when the new Act came into force. It follows, therefore, that the notice dt. 13th

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

ii) Disallowance of amortization expenses of Rs.70,71,825/-, claimed, treating\nthe same to be capital expenditure, in view of the provision of section 36(1)(iii)\nof the Act, read with explanation 8 to section 43(1) of the Act.\nWith regard to the disallowance of Rs.31,000/- u/s.40A(3) of the Act, the\namount paid in cash

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

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

36,85,000 (Thirty Six Lakh Eighty Five Thousand) 6% Non-Cumulative, Non-\nConvertible, Redeemable fully paid up preference shares of Rs.100/- (Rupees Hundred)\neach held by Seabird Marine Services Privat Limited and having an aggregate paid up\nvalue of Rs.36,85,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Six Crores Eight Five Lakhs); (“Proposed\nCapital Reduction”); and (b) NIL consideration being payable

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

ii) an entry or entries in the\nbooks of account. The reasons provided for issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act\nbears a solitary allegation of receipt of on money, but the money has not\nbeen quantified in the reasons recorded. However, its representation in the\nform of an asset or an expenditure or an entry in the books

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

ii) an entry or entries in the\nbooks of account. The reasons provided for issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act\nbears a solitary allegation of receipt of on money, but the money has not\nbeen quantified in the reasons recorded. However, its representation in the\nform of an asset or an expenditure or an entry in the books

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

ii) an entry or entries in the\nbooks of account. The reasons provided for issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act\nbears a solitary allegation of receipt of on money, but the money has not\nbeen quantified in the reasons recorded. However, its representation in the\nform of an asset or an expenditure or an entry in the books

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

ii) an entry or entries in the\nbooks of account. The reasons provided for issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act\nbears a solitary allegation of receipt of on money, but the money has not\nbeen quantified in the reasons recorded. However, its representation in the\nform of an asset or an expenditure or an entry in the books

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

ii) an entry or entries in the\nbooks of account. The reasons provided for issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act\nbears a solitary allegation of receipt of on money, but the money has not\nbeen quantified in the reasons recorded. However, its representation in the\nform of an asset or an expenditure or an entry in the books

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

ii) an entry or entries in the\nbooks of account. The reasons provided for issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act\nbears a solitary allegation of receipt of on money, but the money has not\nbeen quantified in the reasons recorded. However, its representation in the\nform of an asset or an expenditure or an entry in the books

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

36). Therefore, learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted that\nassessing officer, during the assessment proceedings made detailed\nenquiry. Therefore, learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted that assessing\nofficer, during the assessment proceedings made detailed enquiry. Hence,\nPage 20\n21\nITA No. 312, 322 to 329/Rjt/2024\nITA No. 331 & 335 & 371/Rjt/2024\norder passed by the assessing officer, is neither erroneous

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)

reassess the total income of those six assessment years, and that the scheme of assessment or re-assessment of the total income of a person searched will be brought to naught if no addition is allowed to be made for those six assessment years in the absence of any seized incriminating material. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances

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)

reassess the total income of those six assessment years, and that the scheme of assessment or re-assessment of the total income of a person searched will be brought to naught if no addition is allowed to be made for those six assessment years in the absence of any seized incriminating material. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances

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

ii) Assessee’s appeal in ITA No.176/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2014–15. (iii) Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.286/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2014–15. In these appeals, the assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment under section 147/148 of the Act, on the plea that in order to reopen the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act, the primary condition

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

ii) Assessee’s appeal in ITA No.176/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2014–15. (iii) Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.286/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2014–15. In these appeals, the assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment under section 147/148 of the Act, on the plea that in order to reopen the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act, the primary condition

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

ii) Assessee’s appeal in ITA No.176/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2014–15. (iii) Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.286/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2014–15. In these appeals, the assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment under section 147/148 of the Act, on the plea that in order to reopen the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act, the primary condition

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

ii) Assessee’s appeal in ITA No.176/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2014–15. (iii) Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.286/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2014–15. In these appeals, the assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment under section 147/148 of the Act, on the plea that in order to reopen the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act, the primary condition

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

ii) Assessee’s appeal in ITA No.176/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2014–15. (iii) Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.286/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2014–15. In these appeals, the assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment under section 147/148 of the Act, on the plea that in order to reopen the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act, the primary condition

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

ii) Assessee’s appeal in ITA No.176/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2014–15. (iii) Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.286/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2014–15. In these appeals, the assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment under section 147/148 of the Act, on the plea that in order to reopen the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act, the primary condition

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

ii) Assessee’s appeal in ITA No.176/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2014–15. (iii) Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.286/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2014–15. In these appeals, the assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment under section 147/148 of the Act, on the plea that in order to reopen the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act, the primary condition