SHRI JAWAHIR RAVICHANDRA MEHTA,DUBAI(UAE) vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result appeal of the assessee vide ITA/81/Rjt/2020 stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Memebr

section 149, by Finance Act, 2012, which extended limitation for initiation of reassessment proceedings to sixteen years, could not be resorted for reopening concluded proceedings in respect of which limitation had already expired/lapsed before amendment became effective – Held, yes – Whether thus, impugned reassessment notice and all consequent proceedings were to be quashed and set aside – Held, year [Paras

SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAMNAGAR, JAMANGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 83/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccs 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2025 Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dehi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short 'Ld. Cit(A)'], Dated 02.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “All The Below Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudices To Each Other.

1) of section 72 or section 73 or section 74 or sub-section (3) of section 74A or sub-section (3) of section 80J." 4. For deciding this issue, it is necessary for us to examine the object of introducing section 115J which can be easily deduced from the Budget Speech of the then Finance Minister of India made

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-2, , RAJKOT vs. RAVICHANDRA V. MEHTA,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 149, by Finance Act, 2012, which extended limitation for initiation of reassessment proceedings to sixteen years, could not be resorted for reopening concluded proceedings in respect of which limitation had already expired/lapsed before amendment became effective – Held, yes – Whether thus, impugned reassessment notice and all consequent proceedings were to be quashed and set aside – Held, year [Paras

RAVICHANDRA V. MEHTA,,RAJKOT vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-2, , RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 149, by Finance Act, 2012, which extended limitation for initiation of reassessment proceedings to sixteen years, could not be resorted for reopening concluded proceedings in respect of which limitation had already expired/lapsed before amendment became effective – Held, yes – Whether thus, impugned reassessment notice and all consequent proceedings were to be quashed and set aside – Held, year [Paras

M/S. GREEN EARTH BIOGAS PVT. LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.185/Rjt/2023

1) of section or assessed, reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order is loss, the amount of tax calculated on the under-reported income as if it were the total income. Hence, non-levy of penalty is an error which is also prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, Show- Cause Notice for initiation of proceedings

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

72,425/- which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of

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

72,425/- which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of

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

72,425/- which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of

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

72,425/- which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of

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

72,425/- which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of

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

72,425/- which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of

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

72,425/- which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of

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

72,425/- which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of

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

72,425/- which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of

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

72,425/- which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of

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

72,425/- which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of

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

72,425/- which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of

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

72,425/- which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of

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

72,425/- which comes to Rs.1,56,57,518/-, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals) – 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AA, is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Page 17of