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

153A or section 153C. as the case may\nbe they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021\n40. In the context of the above provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act vis-a-\nvisnotice u/s 148 of the Act, it was submitted by ld Counsel that provisions of\nsection 149(1)(b

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

153A or section 153C. as the case may\nbe they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021\n40. In the context of the above provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act vis-a-\nvisnotice u/s 148 of the Act, it was submitted by ld Counsel that provisions of\nsection 149(1)(b

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

153A or section 153C. as the case may\nbe they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021\n40. In the context of the above provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act vis-a-\nvisnotice u/s 148 of the Act, it was submitted by ld Counsel that provisions of\nsection 149(1)(b

SHRI SHAMJIBHAI SADHABHAI KANGAD,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , RAJKOT

u/s 153A is required to be issued beyond the period of six\nyears. For ready reference, extract from provision is reproduced:\n153A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section\n148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated\nunder section 132 or books of account, other documents

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

153A or section 153C. as the case may\nbe they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021\n40. In the context of the above provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act vis-a-\nvis notice u/s 148 of the Act, it was submitted by ld Counsel that provisions of\nsection 149(1)(b

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

153A or section 153C. as the case may\nbe they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021\n40. In the context of the above provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act vis-a-\nvisnotice u/s 148 of the Act, it was submitted by ld Counsel that provisions of\nsection 149(1)(b

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

153A or section 153C. as the case may\nbe they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021\n40. In the context of the above provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act vis-a-\nvisnotice u/s 148 of the Act, it was submitted by ld Counsel that provisions of\nsection 149(1)(b

CLASSIC NETWORKS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT 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

147, is of immense importance as in this case initial assessment was made under section 143(3) of the Act and deduction under section 80IA was wrongly allowed to the assessee as the assessee was not eligible for deduction in that particular assessment year, the argument of the assessee that there was no failure on the part of the assessee

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

147, is of immense importance as in this case initial assessment was made under section 143(3) of the Act and deduction under section 80IA was wrongly allowed to the assessee as the assessee was not eligible for deduction in that particular assessment year, the argument of the assessee that there was no failure on the part of the assessee

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

147, is of immense importance as in this case initial assessment was made under section 143(3) of the Act and deduction under section 80IA was wrongly allowed to the assessee as the assessee was not eligible for deduction in that particular assessment year, the argument of the assessee that there was no failure on the part of the assessee

CLASSIC NETWORKS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT 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

147, is of immense importance as in this case initial assessment was made under section 143(3) of the Act and deduction under section 80IA was wrongly allowed to the assessee as the assessee was not eligible for deduction in that particular assessment year, the argument of the assessee that there was no failure on the part of the assessee

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

1. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA 2. DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI i. Addition an account of commission income of Rs. 8,61,446/-. ii. Addition of peak credit in bank account of Rs. 46,50,353/-. On appeal, before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not press ground relating to commission income of Rs. 8,61,446/-, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed

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

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

b) of the Act and Page 3 of 28 ITA Nos. 785 to 787 & 765/Rjt/2024 Six Twenty Realty Pvt. Ltd. after obtaining necessary approval of the specified authority as defined u/s 151 of the Act. Notice u/s 148 of the Act along with order u/ s148A(d) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee

ACCURATE BUILDCON,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

B-702 in the project. In view of these facts, the seized document cannot be termed as a dumb document as it is highlighting the facts as admitted by the partner of the assessee-firm during the course of survey at its premise. Further, the argument that there is no reference of any name related to the assessee firm

ACCURATE BUILDCON,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

B-702 in the project. In view of these facts, the seized document cannot be termed as a dumb document as it is highlighting the facts as admitted by the partner of the assessee-firm during the course of survey at its premise. Further, the argument that there is no reference of any name related to the assessee firm

ACCURATE BUILDCON ,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

B-702 in the project. In view of these facts, the seized document cannot be termed as a dumb document as it is highlighting the facts as admitted by the partner of the assessee-firm during the course of survey at its premise. Further, the argument that there is no reference of any name related to the assessee firm

ACCURATE BUILDCON,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

B-702 in the project. In view of these facts, the seized document cannot be termed as a dumb document as it is highlighting the facts as admitted by the partner of the assessee-firm during the course of survey at its premise. Further, the argument that there is no reference of any name related to the assessee firm

ACCURATE BUILDCON ,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

B-702 in the project. In view of these facts, the seized document cannot be termed as a dumb document as it is highlighting the facts as admitted by the partner of the assessee-firm during the course of survey at its premise. Further, the argument that there is no reference of any name related to the assessee firm