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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JIVANBHAI DE vs. HIBHAI SARLA,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGARVS.THE ITO WARD-2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

69. The impugned notices issued under section 148 of the Act are accordingly quashed and set aside being invalid having been issued beyond the 'surviving time'. Accordingly, impugned orders passed under section 148A(d) of the Act would also not survive and are accordingly, quashed and set aside. Subsequent proceedings, if any, undertaken by the respondent would not survive

JIVANBHAI DE vs. HIBHAI SARLA,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGARVS.THE ITO WARD 2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

69. The impugned notices issued under section 148 of the Act are accordingly quashed and set aside being invalid having been issued beyond the 'surviving time'. Accordingly, impugned orders passed under section 148A(d) of the Act would also not survive and are accordingly, quashed and set aside. Subsequent proceedings, if any, undertaken by the respondent would not survive

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC DELHI, DELHI

section 69, towards purchase of raw material and manufacturing expenditure in\nrelation to the said unaccounted sales. The addition is duly supported by factual findings of\nthe search action, as discussed in detail in the preceding paragraphs. Inparticular, the\nfollowing evidence brings out that the corresponding purchase of raw material (and\nconsequently the manufacturing expenditure related thereto) were also

KISHAN BEEJ,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.384/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kishan Beej Ito, Wared-2(1) बनाम Kashivishvanath Road Jamnagar – 361 001 Nr. P & T Office Vs. Jamnagar – 361 001 Pan : Aacfk 2114 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

69 A of the l.T. Act, 1961 on account cash deposit in bank account. 4.That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed applicability of provisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. 5.That, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the I.T. Act, 1961. 6.That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly