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

91,608/- ( 9% of Rs.5,99,06,750). 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that during the re-assessment proceedings, the approval given by the Income Tax Authority, u/s 151 of the Act is unsigned, therefore, the reassessment order

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

91,608/- ( 9% of Rs.5,99,06,750). 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that during the re-assessment proceedings, the approval given by the Income Tax Authority, u/s 151 of the Act is unsigned, therefore, the reassessment order

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

91,608/- ( 9% of Rs.5,99,06,750). 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that during the re-assessment proceedings, the approval given by the Income Tax Authority, u/s 151 of the Act is unsigned, therefore, the reassessment order

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

91,608/- ( 9% of Rs.5,99,06,750). 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that during the re-assessment proceedings, the approval given by the Income Tax Authority, u/s 151 of the Act is unsigned, therefore, the reassessment order

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

91,608/- ( 9% of Rs.5,99,06,750). 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that during the re-assessment proceedings, the approval given by the Income Tax Authority, u/s 151 of the Act is unsigned, therefore, the reassessment order

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

91,608/- ( 9% of Rs.5,99,06,750). 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that during the re-assessment proceedings, the approval given by the Income Tax Authority, u/s 151 of the Act is unsigned, therefore, the reassessment order

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

91,608/- ( 9% of Rs.5,99,06,750). 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that during the re-assessment proceedings, the approval given by the Income Tax Authority, u/s 151 of the Act is unsigned, therefore, the reassessment order

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

91,608/- ( 9% of Rs.5,99,06,750). 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that during the re-assessment proceedings, the approval given by the Income Tax Authority, u/s 151 of the Act is unsigned, therefore, the reassessment order

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

91,608/- ( 9% of Rs.5,99,06,750). 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that during the re-assessment proceedings, the approval given by the Income Tax Authority, u/s 151 of the Act is unsigned, therefore, the reassessment order

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

91,608/- ( 9% of Rs.5,99,06,750). 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that during the re-assessment proceedings, the approval given by the Income Tax Authority, u/s 151 of the Act is unsigned, therefore, the reassessment order

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

91,608/- ( 9% of Rs.5,99,06,750). 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that during the re-assessment proceedings, the approval given by the Income Tax Authority, u/s 151 of the Act is unsigned, therefore, the reassessment order

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

91,608/- ( 9% of Rs.5,99,06,750). 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. Shri D. M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that during the re-assessment proceedings, the approval given by the Income Tax Authority, u/s 151 of the Act is unsigned, therefore, the reassessment order

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

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

reassessment proceedings can sustain on the basis of a foundational notice being issued by a Non-Jurisdictional AO. 7. Reliance is placed on: Nimir Kishore Mehta v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax/20241 161 axmann.com 553 (Bombay) For 15 Page 12 of 25 ITA No. 611 & 612/RJT/2025 Dff Shri Gandhi Maulana Azas Shramjivi Ashra The further point is Respondent

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

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

reassessment proceedings can sustain on the basis of a foundational notice being issued by a Non-Jurisdictional AO. 7. Reliance is placed on: Nimir Kishore Mehta v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax/20241 161 axmann.com 553 (Bombay) For 15 Page 12 of 25 ITA No. 611 & 612/RJT/2025 Dff Shri Gandhi Maulana Azas Shramjivi Ashra The further point is Respondent

KALPESH RAVJIBHAI SOJITRA,JASDAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrid Hearing) Kalpesh Ravjibhai Sojitra, Vs. The Ito, Prop. Sojitra Petrolium, Bypass Ward-2(1)(2), Circle Atkot Road, Jasdan, Rajkot 360050, Rajkot-( Guj) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bqmps8120G (/Appellant) (/Respondent)

91,89,290*1.63%=1,50,000/-), and the amount of Rs. 90,39,290/- ( Rs.91,89,290- Rs. 1,50,000) was treated by the assessing officer as unexplained cash credit during the F.Y 2016-17, relevant to assessment year 2017–18 u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer

JIGAR INDUSTRIES,JAMWADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAJKOT

In the result, question is decided against the Revenue

91,35,820/-on completely relying upon the show cause notice and materials supplied by the excise department without finding any defect in books of accounts and without any new tangible material. (3). The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.52,09,784/- towards alleged undisclosed gross profit @ 24.02% on suppressed sales solely based on a show

YESHA DHIRAJLAL THAKRAR,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) From Penalty Order Dated 29.01.2022 (Din: Itba/Pnl/F/271(1)(B)/2021-22/1039193062(1)) Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer,Nfac, Delhi(Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(B) Of The 1961 Act Levying Penalty Of Rs. 30,000/- Against The Assesse For Non Compliance Of Three Notices Dated 27.07.2021, 06.08.2021 & 16.08.2021 Issued During Reassessment Proceedings , All Three Aforesaid Notices U/S 142(1) Of The 1961 Act. The Proceedings Were Conducted Before Division Bench Through E-Court Through Virtual Hearing Mode.

reassessment order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the AO u/s 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the 1961 Act(DIN ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/ 1035663980(1), wherein addition of Rs. 1,90,50,000/- was made against the assessee by the AO. The reasons for reopening of the assessment were that 2 Yesha Dhirjla Thakarar v. National Faceless Assessment Centre

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

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

91,980/-. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act issued. Further, notice under section 142(1) of the Act has been issued confronting various incriminating documents impounded during the Income-tax Survey and seeking assessee's response on the same. Issue Involved: 5. The brief facts of the case are that a survey u/s 133A