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:

5. During the course of hearing before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the fact that in the case of father and grandfather of the assessee, the reassessment proceedings initiated for the same assessment year as in the present case, i.e. AY 2004-05, were also quashed by the ITAT for 4 ACIT Vs. Shri

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

5,62,50,000/- for the year under\nconsideration invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act.\n17. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the\nmatter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has reduced the estimated profit\nfrom 50% to 18% of on money receipts. The Ld.CIT(A) also rejected the\nassessee

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

5. Before we proceed to adjudicate the above technical ground of the assessee, we advert to the relevant facts, on merits of the case of the assessee, in the succinct manner, to appreciate the controversy and the issue for adjudication. The brief history of the case is that the assessee is a closely held Private Limited company, Indian Resident, civil

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

5. Before we proceed to adjudicate the above technical ground of the assessee, we advert to the relevant facts, on merits of the case of the assessee, in the succinct manner, to appreciate the controversy and the issue for adjudication. The brief history of the case is that the assessee is a closely held Private Limited company, Indian Resident, civil

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

5. Before we proceed to adjudicate the above technical ground of the assessee, we advert to the relevant facts, on merits of the case of the assessee, in the succinct manner, to appreciate the controversy and the issue for adjudication. The brief history of the case is that the assessee is a closely held Private Limited company, Indian Resident, civil

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

5. Before we proceed to adjudicate the above technical ground of the assessee, we advert to the relevant facts, on merits of the case of the assessee, in the succinct manner, to appreciate the controversy and the issue for adjudication. The brief history of the case is that the assessee is a closely held Private Limited company, Indian Resident, civil

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

5. Before we proceed to adjudicate the above technical ground of the assessee, we advert to the relevant facts, on merits of the case of the assessee, in the succinct manner, to appreciate the controversy and the issue for adjudication. The brief history of the case is that the assessee is a closely held Private Limited company, Indian Resident, civil

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

5. Before we proceed to adjudicate the above technical ground of the assessee, we advert to the relevant facts, on merits of the case of the assessee, in the succinct manner, to appreciate the controversy and the issue for adjudication. The brief history of the case is that the assessee is a closely held Private Limited company, Indian Resident, civil

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

5. Before we proceed to adjudicate the above technical ground of the assessee, we advert to the relevant facts, on merits of the case of the assessee, in the succinct manner, to appreciate the controversy and the issue for adjudication. The brief history of the case is that the assessee is a closely held Private Limited company, Indian Resident, civil

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

5. Before we proceed to adjudicate the above technical ground of the assessee, we advert to the relevant facts, on merits of the case of the assessee, in the succinct manner, to appreciate the controversy and the issue for adjudication. The brief history of the case is that the assessee is a closely held Private Limited company, Indian Resident, civil

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

5. Before we proceed to adjudicate the above technical ground of the assessee, we advert to the relevant facts, on merits of the case of the assessee, in the succinct manner, to appreciate the controversy and the issue for adjudication. The brief history of the case is that the assessee is a closely held Private Limited company, Indian Resident, civil

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

5. Before we proceed to adjudicate the above technical ground of the assessee, we advert to the relevant facts, on merits of the case of the assessee, in the succinct manner, to appreciate the controversy and the issue for adjudication. The brief history of the case is that the assessee is a closely held Private Limited company, Indian Resident, civil

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

5. Before we proceed to adjudicate the above technical ground of the assessee, we advert to the relevant facts, on merits of the case of the assessee, in the succinct manner, to appreciate the controversy and the issue for adjudication. The brief history of the case is that the assessee is a closely held Private Limited company, Indian Resident, civil

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

5. Before we proceed to adjudicate the above technical ground of the assessee, we advert to the relevant facts, on merits of the case of the assessee, in the succinct manner, to appreciate the controversy and the issue for adjudication. The brief history of the case is that the assessee is a closely held Private Limited company, Indian Resident, civil

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

5. Before we proceed to adjudicate the above technical ground of the assessee, we advert to the relevant facts, on merits of the case of the assessee, in the succinct manner, to appreciate the controversy and the issue for adjudication. The brief history of the case is that the assessee is a closely held Private Limited company, Indian Resident, civil

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

5. Before we proceed to adjudicate the above technical ground of the assessee, we advert to the relevant facts, on merits of the case of the assessee, in the succinct manner, to appreciate the controversy and the issue for adjudication. The brief history of the case is that the assessee is a closely held Private Limited company, Indian Resident, civil

SMT. PRATIMABEN V. RAJA,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXN., RAJKOT

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

5(2)(a), as what is remitted is not 'salary income' but a mere transfer of assessee's fund from one bank account to another which does not give rise to 'Income'. It is not clear as to whether the expression 'merely because' used in the Circular refers to the former type of remittance or the latter. To this extent

SHRI VINODKUMAR HIRALAL RAJA,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXN., RAJKOT

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

5(2)(a), as what is remitted is not 'salary income' but a mere transfer of assessee's fund from one bank account to another which does not give rise to 'Income'. It is not clear as to whether the expression 'merely because' used in the Circular refers to the former type of remittance or the latter. To this extent

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"

5 to a return filed under section 148 of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 148 of the Act read as under: [Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment. 148. [(1)] Before making the assessment, reassessment