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

reassessment order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

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 order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

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 order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

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 order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

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 order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

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 order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

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

reassessment order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

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 order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

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 order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

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 order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

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 order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

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 order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

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

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

M/S. SHREE SIDHNATH ENTERPRISE,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.172/Rjt/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007 A.C.I.T, M/S Shree Sidhnath Enterprise, Central Circle-1, Vs. 8, Chokhawala Chambers, Rajkot. Bardan Gali, Danapith, Rajkot.

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act for the other assessment years were dropped after due verification. But in the case on hand, there was no such verification made by the AO. 4.2 The learned DR also submitted that the word used “verification” in the reasons recorded for the reopening of the assessment under section

JIGAR INDUSTRIES,JAMWADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAJKOT

In the result, question is decided against the Revenue

52,09,784/-, on account of lower G.P. and Rs. 15,00,849/-, on account of suppressed raw material cost, including manufacturing overheads, requested to provide him, the copy of letter No. ITO/Wd. 1(1)(5)/REIC-II/2014-15/25 dated 21-01-2015 and the material available on record to support the alleged unaccounted purchase of Rs. 1,73,96,200/-without