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

56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed.” 32. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 33. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, begins by pointing

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

56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed.” 32. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 33. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, begins by pointing

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

56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed.” 32. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 33. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, begins by pointing

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

56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed.” 32. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 33. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, begins by pointing

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

56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed.” 32. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 33. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, begins by pointing

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

56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed.” 32. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 33. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, begins by pointing

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

56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed.” 32. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 33. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, begins by pointing

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

56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed.” 32. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 33. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, begins by pointing

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

56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed.” 32. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 33. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, begins by pointing

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

56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed.” 32. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 33. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, begins by pointing

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

56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed.” 32. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 33. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, begins by pointing

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

56,57,518/- is confirmed out of total addition of Rs. 17,39,72,425/-. Remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3 & 4 are partly allowed.” 32. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 33. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, begins by pointing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SIX TWENTY REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

56,000 | 4,06,000\n| C3 | 502 | 3 BHK | 30,42,000 | 33,00,000 | 2,58,000\n| C3 | 801 | 3 BHK | 30,51,000 | 33,00,000 | 2,49,000\n| C3 | 501 | 3 BHK | 30,60,000 | 33,00,000 | 2

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT LTD,RAJOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

56,000\n| 4,06,000\n| C3\n| 502\n| 3 BHK\n| 30,42,000\n| 33,00,000\n| 2,58,000\n| C3\n| 801\n| 3 BHK\n| 30,51,000\n| 33,00,000\n| 2

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

56,017/- as unexplained within the meaning of section 69 of the IT Act and\nnot charged tax u/s section 115BBE of the I.T. Act\nFurther, it is seen that during the year under consideration, the assessee firm has\ntotal turnover of Rs.77,42,35,548/- and had earned a gross profit

M/S. PREMJI VALJI & SONS (JEWELLERS) P. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 2 (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

2. The CIT(A) erred in confirming that the purchases from M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. were bogus and making an addition of 25% of the purchases.” 3. The assessee in ground No. 1 of its appeal has challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. 3.1 The necessary facts of the case are that

M/S. PREMJI VALJI & SONS (JEWELLERS) P. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 2 (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant, Judic Member आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.257 & 223/Rjt/2022 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S Premji Valji & Sons D.C.I.T, (Jewellers) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Circle-2(1), “Kuvarjibhai Tower” Rakot. Palace Road, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Aaccp2555N

2. The CIT(A) erred in confirming that the purchases from M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. were bogus and making an addition of 25% of the purchases.” 3. The assessee in ground No. 1 of its appeal has challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. 4. The necessary facts of the case are that

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

56,000\n4,06,000\nC3\n502\n3 BHK\n30,42,000\n33,00,000\n2,58,000\nC3\n801\n3 BHK\n30,51,000\n33,00,000\n2,49,000\nC3\n501\n3 BHK\n30,60,000\n33,00,000\n2,40,000\nD1\n202\n4 BHK\n49,49,000\n53,00,000\n3,51,000\nD1\n301