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

36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act” 25. Since, the legal grounds raised by the assessee, for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment year 2016–17, are similar and identical. Therefore, in order

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

36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act” 25. Since, the legal grounds raised by the assessee, for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment year 2016–17, are similar and identical. Therefore, in 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

36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act” 25. Since, the legal grounds raised by the assessee, for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment year 2016–17, are similar and identical. Therefore, in 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

36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act” 25. Since, the legal grounds raised by the assessee, for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment year 2016–17, are similar and identical. Therefore, in 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

36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act” 25. Since, the legal grounds raised by the assessee, for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment year 2016–17, are similar and identical. Therefore, in 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

36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act” 25. Since, the legal grounds raised by the assessee, for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment year 2016–17, are similar and identical. Therefore, in 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

36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act” 25. Since, the legal grounds raised by the assessee, for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment year 2016–17, are similar and identical. Therefore, in 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

36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act” 25. Since, the legal grounds raised by the assessee, for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment year 2016–17, are similar and identical. Therefore, in 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

36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act” 25. Since, the legal grounds raised by the assessee, for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment year 2016–17, are similar and identical. Therefore, in 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

36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act” 25. Since, the legal grounds raised by the assessee, for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment year 2016–17, are similar and identical. Therefore, in 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

36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act” 25. Since, the legal grounds raised by the assessee, for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment year 2016–17, are similar and identical. Therefore, in 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

36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act” 25. Since, the legal grounds raised by the assessee, for assessment year 2015–16 and for assessment year 2016–17, are similar and identical. Therefore, in order

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

u/s. 148 issued on 27-02-2015 for those years are void ab initio. Under the circumstances the submissions made on the merits of additions in the impugned assessment orders are not required to be adjudicated upon. The appeals for AY 1998-99 to 2004-05 are allowed.” 6. During the course of appellant proceeding before us the learned consul

SHRI MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN ,GANDHIDHAM vs. THEACIT, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment' cannot he reduced beyond the income originally assessed.' 14.9 In the light of above decision and after analyzing all the facts as discussed above, we find that the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction of the expenditures in respect of which the escaped income has sought to be assessed. The loss from the share trading activity has direct

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment' cannot he reduced beyond the income originally assessed.' 14.9 In the light of above decision and after analyzing all the facts as discussed above, we find that the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction of the expenditures in respect of which the escaped income has sought to be assessed. The loss from the share trading activity has direct

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment' cannot he reduced beyond the income originally assessed.' 14.9 In the light of above decision and after analyzing all the facts as discussed above, we find that the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction of the expenditures in respect of which the escaped income has sought to be assessed. The loss from the share trading activity has direct

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment' cannot he reduced beyond the income originally assessed.' 14.9 In the light of above decision and after analyzing all the facts as discussed above, we find that the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction of the expenditures in respect of which the escaped income has sought to be assessed. The loss from the share trading activity has direct

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

147 of the Act is incurably and defective. In para-3 of SCN, it is\nstated that the provision of Section 149(1)(b) has been followed by taking\napproval from the specified authority. However, as submitted above, there is no\nmention of asset or expenditure represented by the alleged-escaped income and\nhence, the notice issued u/s