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

37\nof this order). This means that while reopening the proceedings, assessing officer\nhad formed an opinion and a belief that, either search has been carried out in\nassessee's case or that assessee`s representative of any other search person (In\nthis case of RK Group). Thus, the very initiation of the reassessment\nproceedings is on a completely incorrect

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

1) of section 149 are\nmutually exclusive. Further, the notice issued under section 148 specifically\nprescribes the name of specified authority granting sanction as per section 151 of the\nAct which can indicate the specific condition under which the approval is granted. i.e.\nif the notice u/s 148 is issued within three years from the end of the relevant

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

1) of section 149 are\nmutually exclusive. Further, the notice issued under section 148 specifically\nprescribes the name of specified authority granting sanction as per section 151 of the\nAct which can indicate the specific condition under which the approval is granted. i.e.\nif the notice u/s 148 is issued within three years from the end of the relevant

THE DCIT, (INTL. TAXN.), RAJKOT vs. M/S. KOREA SOUTH EAST POWER CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit (Intl. Taxn.) M/S.Korea South East Power Amruta Estate Co.Ltd. Room No.312 Mg Road बनाम/ C/O. P.V. Page & Co., Girnar Cinema 201, Sardar Griha, 198 L.T. Marg Vs. Rajkot Mumbai – 400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Pan : Ahvps 3555Q Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/12/2023

section 44BB of the Act.” 3.5. Lastly, the Ld.CIT(A) has noted that in subsequent two years, i.e. AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14, the Assessing Officer himself has dropped penalty proceedings which she noted clearly proves that the Assessing Officer also believed that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty. The relevant portion of the order

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

37\nof this order). This means that while reopening the proceedings, assessing officer\nhad formed an opinion and a belief that, either search has been carried out in\nassessee's case or that assessee`s representative of any other search person (In\nthis case of RK Group). Thus, the very initiation of the reassessment\nproceedings is on a completely incorrect

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

37\nof this order). This means that while reopening the proceedings, assessing officer\nhad formed an opinion and a belief that, either search has been carried out in\nassessee's case or that assessee`s representative of any other search person (In\nthis case of RK Group). Thus, the very initiation of the reassessment\nproceedings is on a completely incorrect

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

37\nof this order). This means that while reopening the proceedings, assessing officer\nhad formed an opinion and a belief that, either search has been carried out in\nassessee's case or that assessee`s representative of any other search person (In\nthis case of RK Group). Thus, the very initiation of the reassessment\nproceedings is on a completely incorrect

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita Nos. 498 & 499/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2020-21 बनाम Gopal Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Plot No.2322-2324, Gidc Metoda, Income Tax Vs. Lodhika, Rajkot, Gujarat-360021 Circle-1(1), Rajkot Pan : Aadcg6113A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala & Shri K. K. Maloo, Ars. राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit.Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025

section 144B of the Act with reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee." 2.1. We have also gone through the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 29.11.2021 which is as follows: ITA Nos. 498 & 499/Rjt/2025 Gopal Snacks Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 15 2.2. We further find the show cause notice issued that

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 proceedings should be quashed for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment 2016–17. 36. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that there is no harm, to the assessee, if the assessing officer issued two different DIN number for the same Assessment Year. 37. The Ld. DR further pointed out that the information

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 proceedings should be quashed for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment 2016–17. 36. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that there is no harm, to the assessee, if the assessing officer issued two different DIN number for the same Assessment Year. 37. The Ld. DR further pointed out that the information

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

reassessment proceedings should be quashed for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment 2016–17. 36. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that there is no harm, to the assessee, if the assessing officer issued two different DIN number for the same Assessment Year. 37. The Ld. DR further pointed out that the information

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 proceedings should be quashed for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment 2016–17. 36. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that there is no harm, to the assessee, if the assessing officer issued two different DIN number for the same Assessment Year. 37. The Ld. DR further pointed out that the information

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 proceedings should be quashed for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment 2016–17. 36. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that there is no harm, to the assessee, if the assessing officer issued two different DIN number for the same Assessment Year. 37. The Ld. DR further pointed out that the information

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 proceedings should be quashed for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment 2016–17. 36. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that there is no harm, to the assessee, if the assessing officer issued two different DIN number for the same Assessment Year. 37. The Ld. DR further pointed out that the information

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 proceedings should be quashed for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment 2016–17. 36. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that there is no harm, to the assessee, if the assessing officer issued two different DIN number for the same Assessment Year. 37. The Ld. DR further pointed out that the information

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 proceedings should be quashed for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment 2016–17. 36. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that there is no harm, to the assessee, if the assessing officer issued two different DIN number for the same Assessment Year. 37. The Ld. DR further pointed out that the information

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 proceedings should be quashed for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment 2016–17. 36. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that there is no harm, to the assessee, if the assessing officer issued two different DIN number for the same Assessment Year. 37. The Ld. DR further pointed out that the information

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 proceedings should be quashed for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment 2016–17. 36. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that there is no harm, to the assessee, if the assessing officer issued two different DIN number for the same Assessment Year. 37. The Ld. DR further pointed out that the information