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

39,970/-. Subsequently, a notice\nu/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, has been issued on the e-filing portal of the\nAssessee. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) have been issued from time to time\nseeking primary as well as further details from the assessee for carrying out the\nassessment. In view of natural justice, the objections raised

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

39,970/-. Subsequently, a notice\nu/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, has been issued on the e-filing portal of the\nAssessee. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) have been issued from time to time\nseeking primary as well as further details from the assessee for carrying out the\nassessment. In view of natural justice, the objections raised

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

39,970/-. Subsequently, a notice\nu/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, has been issued on the e-filing portal of the\nAssessee. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) have been issued from time to time\nseeking primary as well as further details from the assessee for carrying out the\nassessment. In view of natural justice, the objections raised

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

39,78,696/- and the same was subject to tax @ 10% . While holding so, the Ld.AO held that the provision of the Act was clear in this regard, and even as per the advice of the C.A. in Form No.15CA/CB the nature of the receipts was by way of technical services while the assessee had treated the same as business

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

39,970/-. Subsequently, a notice\nu/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, has been issued on the e-filing portal of the\nAssessee. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) have been issued from time to time\nseeking primary as well as further details from the assessee for carrying out the\nassessment. In view of natural justice, the objections raised

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

39,970/-. Subsequently, a notice\nu/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, has been issued on the e-filing portal of the\nAssessee. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) have been issued from time to time\nseeking primary as well as further details from the assessee for carrying out the\nassessment. In view of natural justice, the objections raised

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

39,970/-. Subsequently, a notice\nu/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, has been issued on the e-filing portal of the\nAssessee. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) have been issued from time to time\nseeking primary as well as further details from the assessee for carrying out the\nassessment. In view of natural justice, the objections raised

SHRI GIRISHBHAI NANJIBHAI SOLANKI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2), RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 31 & 32/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Years:2011-12, 2012-13 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

39 & 40/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Years:2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Chandresh Nanjibhai Bhayani Vs. ITO A-202, Shyamal Plaza, Nr. Raiya Ward-1(1)(2), Circle, Raiya Road, Rajkot Rajkot PAN: AGTPB2935N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R. Revenue by : Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date

SHRI GIRISHBHAI NANJIBHAI SOLANKI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2), RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 31 & 32/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Years:2011-12, 2012-13 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

39 & 40/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Years:2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Chandresh Nanjibhai Bhayani Vs. ITO A-202, Shyamal Plaza, Nr. Raiya Ward-1(1)(2), Circle, Raiya Road, Rajkot Rajkot PAN: AGTPB2935N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R. Revenue by : Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date

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

39,72,425/- which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page

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

39,72,425/- which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page

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

39,72,425/- which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page

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

39,72,425/- which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page

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

39,72,425/- which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page

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

39,72,425/- which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page

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

39,72,425/- which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page

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

39,72,425/- which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page

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

39,72,425/- which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page

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

39,72,425/- which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page