M/S BACKBONE PROJECTS LIMITED.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

58 Canal Project 5 SH - 17 STM Road 6 SH - 21 Budheal - Faridabad Road Project 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in holding that appellant was not a developer of infrastructure facility in respect of projects specified by him and listed in ground No. 2 above. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. BACKBONE PROJECTS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

58 Canal Project 5 SH - 17 STM Road 6 SH - 21 Budheal - Faridabad Road Project 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in holding that appellant was not a developer of infrastructure facility in respect of projects specified by him and listed in ground No. 2 above. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter

M/S BACKBONE PROJECTS LIMITED.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

58 Canal Project 5 SH - 17 STM Road 6 SH - 21 Budheal - Faridabad Road Project 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in holding that appellant was not a developer of infrastructure facility in respect of projects specified by him and listed in ground No. 2 above. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. BACKBONE PROJECTS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

58 Canal Project 5 SH - 17 STM Road 6 SH - 21 Budheal - Faridabad Road Project 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in holding that appellant was not a developer of infrastructure facility in respect of projects specified by him and listed in ground No. 2 above. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter

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

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

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

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 out that in respect of assessment year (AY) 2016-17, the assessing officer has issued two different DIN number. To issue two different DIN Number

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

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 out that in respect of assessment year (AY) 2016-17, the assessing officer has issued two different DIN number. To issue two different DIN Number

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

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 out that in respect of assessment year (AY) 2016-17, the assessing officer has issued two different DIN number. To issue two different DIN Number

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

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 out that in respect of assessment year (AY) 2016-17, the assessing officer has issued two different DIN number. To issue two different DIN Number

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

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 out that in respect of assessment year (AY) 2016-17, the assessing officer has issued two different DIN number. To issue two different DIN Number

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

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 out that in respect of assessment year (AY) 2016-17, the assessing officer has issued two different DIN number. To issue two different DIN Number

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

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 out that in respect of assessment year (AY) 2016-17, the assessing officer has issued two different DIN number. To issue two different DIN Number

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

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 out that in respect of assessment year (AY) 2016-17, the assessing officer has issued two different DIN number. To issue two different DIN Number

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

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 out that in respect of assessment year (AY) 2016-17, the assessing officer has issued two different DIN number. To issue two different DIN Number

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

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 out that in respect of assessment year (AY) 2016-17, the assessing officer has issued two different DIN number. To issue two different DIN Number

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

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 out that in respect of assessment year (AY) 2016-17, the assessing officer has issued two different DIN number. To issue two different DIN Number