DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH, RAJKOT

reassessment\nproceedings is on a completely incorrect factual premises or belief and it was\nstrongly objected by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. Therefore,\non this ground also, initiation of proceeding u/s. 147 of the Act is incurably and\ndefective.\n43. We find that in para-3 of SCN( reproduced above), it is stated that the\nprovision of Section 149

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH, RAJKOT

reassessment\nproceedings is on a completely incorrect factual premises or belief and it was\nstrongly objected by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. Therefore,\non this ground also, initiation of proceeding u/s. 147 of the Act is incurably and\ndefective.\n43. We find that in para-3 of SCN( reproduced above), it is stated that the\nprovision of Section 149

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

reassessment\nproceedings is on a completely incorrect factual premises or belief and it was\nstrongly objected by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. Therefore,\non this ground also, initiation of proceeding u/s. 147 of the Act is incurably and\ndefective.\n43. We find that in para-3 of SCN( reproduced above), it is stated that the\nprovision of Section 149

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, RAJKOT., RAJKOT

reassessment\nproceedings is on a completely incorrect factual premises or belief and it was\nstrongly objected by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. Therefore,\non this ground also, initiation of proceeding u/s. 147 of the Act is incurably and\ndefective.\n43. We find that in para-3 of SCN( reproduced above), it is stated that the\nprovision of Section 149

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

reassessment\nproceedings is on a completely incorrect factual premises or belief and it was\nstrongly objected by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. Therefore,\non this ground also, initiation of proceeding u/s. 147 of the Act is incurably and\ndefective.\n43. We find that in para-3 of SCN( reproduced above), it is stated that the\nprovision of Section 149

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) :

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, by determining total income at Rs.22,40,770/- and making addition of Rs. 21,92,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. The notice u/s 148 of the Act is challenged by the assessee on two ( grievances )counts, Viz: (i)Notice is barred by limitation and (ii) Procedure laid down u/s 148A is not followed

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

reassessment\nproceedings is on a completely incorrect factual premises or belief and it was\nstrongly objected by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. Therefore,\non this ground also, initiation of proceeding u/s. 147 of the Act is incurably and\ndefective.\n43. We find that in para-3 of SCN( reproduced above), it is stated that the\nprovision of Section 149

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 proceedings should be quashed for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment 2016–17. 36. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that there is no harm, to the assessee, if the assessing officer issued two different DIN number for the same Assessment Year. 37. The Ld. DR further pointed out that the information

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 proceedings should be quashed for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment 2016–17. 36. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that there is no harm, to the assessee, if the assessing officer issued two different DIN number for the same Assessment Year. 37. The Ld. DR further pointed out that the information

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 proceedings should be quashed for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment 2016–17. 36. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that there is no harm, to the assessee, if the assessing officer issued two different DIN number for the same Assessment Year. 37. The Ld. DR further pointed out that the information

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 proceedings should be quashed for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment 2016–17. 36. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that there is no harm, to the assessee, if the assessing officer issued two different DIN number for the same Assessment Year. 37. The Ld. DR further pointed out that the information

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 proceedings should be quashed for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment 2016–17. 36. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that there is no harm, to the assessee, if the assessing officer issued two different DIN number for the same Assessment Year. 37. The Ld. DR further pointed out that the information

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 proceedings should be quashed for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment 2016–17. 36. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that there is no harm, to the assessee, if the assessing officer issued two different DIN number for the same Assessment Year. 37. The Ld. DR further pointed out that the information

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 proceedings should be quashed for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment 2016–17. 36. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that there is no harm, to the assessee, if the assessing officer issued two different DIN number for the same Assessment Year. 37. The Ld. DR further pointed out that the information

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 proceedings should be quashed for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment 2016–17. 36. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that there is no harm, to the assessee, if the assessing officer issued two different DIN number for the same Assessment Year. 37. The Ld. DR further pointed out that the information

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 proceedings should be quashed for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment 2016–17. 36. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that there is no harm, to the assessee, if the assessing officer issued two different DIN number for the same Assessment Year. 37. The Ld. DR further pointed out that the information

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 proceedings should be quashed for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment 2016–17. 36. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that there is no harm, to the assessee, if the assessing officer issued two different DIN number for the same Assessment Year. 37. The Ld. DR further pointed out that the information

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 proceedings should be quashed for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment 2016–17. 36. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that there is no harm, to the assessee, if the assessing officer issued two different DIN number for the same Assessment Year. 37. The Ld. DR further pointed out that the information