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

147), the Assessing Officer must obtain prior approval from the specified higher authority (e.g., Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, Principal Chief Commissioner, etc., as applicable) and must record the reasons on which this approval is based. The statutory scheme makes this a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment proceedings. Therefore, we find that Section 151 sanction is jurisdictional, without

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

147), the Assessing Officer must obtain prior approval from the specified higher authority (e.g., Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, Principal Chief Commissioner, etc., as applicable) and must record the reasons on which this approval is based. The statutory scheme makes this a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment proceedings. Therefore, we find that Section 151 sanction is jurisdictional, without

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

147), the Assessing Officer must obtain prior approval from the specified higher authority (e.g., Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, Principal Chief Commissioner, etc., as applicable) and must record the reasons on which this approval is based. The statutory scheme makes this a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment proceedings. Therefore, we find that Section 151 sanction is jurisdictional, without

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

147), the Assessing Officer must obtain prior approval from the specified higher authority (e.g., Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, Principal Chief Commissioner, etc., as applicable) and must record the reasons on which this approval is based. The statutory scheme makes this a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment proceedings. Therefore, we find that Section 151 sanction is jurisdictional, without

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

147), the Assessing Officer must obtain prior approval from the specified higher authority (e.g., Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, Principal Chief Commissioner, etc., as applicable) and must record the reasons on which this approval is based. The statutory scheme makes this a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment proceedings. Therefore, we find that Section 151 sanction is jurisdictional, without

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

147), the Assessing Officer must obtain prior approval from the specified higher authority (e.g., Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, Principal Chief Commissioner, etc., as applicable) and must record the reasons on which this approval is based. The statutory scheme makes this a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment proceedings. Therefore, we find that Section 151 sanction is jurisdictional, without

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

147), the Assessing Officer must obtain prior approval from the specified higher authority (e.g., Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, Principal Chief Commissioner, etc., as applicable) and must record the reasons on which this approval is based. The statutory scheme makes this a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment proceedings. Therefore, we find that Section 151 sanction is jurisdictional, without

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

147), the Assessing Officer must obtain prior approval from the specified higher authority (e.g., Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, Principal Chief Commissioner, etc., as applicable) and must record the reasons on which this approval is based. The statutory scheme makes this a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment proceedings. Therefore, we find that Section 151 sanction is jurisdictional, without

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

147), the Assessing Officer must obtain prior approval from the specified higher authority (e.g., Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, Principal Chief Commissioner, etc., as applicable) and must record the reasons on which this approval is based. The statutory scheme makes this a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment proceedings. Therefore, we find that Section 151 sanction is jurisdictional, without

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

147), the Assessing Officer must obtain prior approval from the specified higher authority (e.g., Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, Principal Chief Commissioner, etc., as applicable) and must record the reasons on which this approval is based. The statutory scheme makes this a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment proceedings. Therefore, we find that Section 151 sanction is jurisdictional, without

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

147), the Assessing Officer must obtain prior approval from the specified higher authority (e.g., Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, Principal Chief Commissioner, etc., as applicable) and must record the reasons on which this approval is based. The statutory scheme makes this a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment proceedings. Therefore, we find that Section 151 sanction is jurisdictional, without

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

147), the Assessing Officer must obtain prior approval from the specified higher authority (e.g., Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, Principal Chief Commissioner, etc., as applicable) and must record the reasons on which this approval is based. The statutory scheme makes this a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment proceedings. Therefore, we find that Section 151 sanction is jurisdictional, without

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 against the assessee u/s 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the 1961 Act, making an addition of Rs. 1,90,50,000/- against the assessee u/s 56(2)(vii) of the 1961 Act as an unexplained investment. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee u/s 271

M/S. UNITED ENGINEERS, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

147 read with section 143(3) of the Act in the given facts and circumstances. 14. Coming to the 2nd fold of contention of the learned AR that the assessment framed under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act is bad in law and therefore no penalty proceedings can be initiated under section 271

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s\nPage 6 of 24\nITA Nos. 510 Rjt 2025 & 9 Ors.\nVallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya\n271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for\n assessment year 2015-16, in the case of same assessee.\n11. Aggrieved by the addition sustained

SHRI RAJNIKANT HARGOVINDDAS SANADIA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (3)(5), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

reassessment determining the total income at Rs. 14,42,470/- vide order dated 26-12-2018. 2.1. Since the assessee has failed to comply with the notice issued u/s. 142(1) dated 18-12-2018 in spite of service of notice to the assessee, the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued

SHRI RAJNIKANT HARGOVINDDAS SANADIA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (3)(5), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

reassessment determining the total income at Rs. 14,42,470/- vide order dated 26-12-2018. 2.1. Since the assessee has failed to comply with the notice issued u/s. 142(1) dated 18-12-2018 in spite of service of notice to the assessee, the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s Page 6 of 24 ITA Nos. 510 Rjt 2025 & 9 Ors. Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2015-16, in the case of same assessee. 11. Aggrieved by the addition sustained