6 CIT in v. Mohmed Juned Dadani

355 ITR 172High Court2013#633 most cited

What is 6 CIT in v. Mohmed Juned Dadani authority for?

In reassessment proceedings, if the Assessing Officer fails to make an addition on the specific ground for which the assessment was reopened, no addition can be made on other issues not forming part of the original reasons recorded.

156

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mohmed Juned Dadani · Mohmed Juned Dadani · reopening of assessment · Section 147 · Section 148 · scope of reassessment · additions on other issues · reasons recorded · escapement of income · Jet Airways principle

Also reported as

79 Taxmann.com 153

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 69A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

third party informationlive linkreason to believeentry operatorescapement of incomeappeal before cit(a)reopening of assessmentaccommodation entrysection 145(3)change of opinionreassessment proceedingsfirst appeal

Judgments citing 6 CIT in v. Mohmed Juned Dadani

Ratanvav Juth Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandali Limited, Bhavnagar, Gujarat vs. ITO Ward 1(8) Bhavnagar, Bhavnagar, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 105/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…ice u/s. 148 of the Act. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in sustaining the disallowance of deduction of Rs. 11,03,280/- as made by the AO. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mohamed Juned Dadani (355 ITR 172) in this regard. Ratanvav Juth Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandali Limited Vs ITO, AY- 2018-19 4 7. Per Contra Smt. Ananya Kulshresth the Ld. Sr. DR, supported the order of the lower authorities. 8. We have considered the rival submissions. It is found that the case of the assessee was reopened by the AO to examine the cash deposits and time depo…

Bindu Dharmesh Bhatt, Vadodara vs. Asstt.CIT., Circle-1(3), Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 618/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 274

…for reopening. The Ld. AR submitted that it is well settled that if no addition has been made in respect of the issue for which the case was reopened, reopening is not justified. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani -355 ITR 172 (Guj); ii) CIT vs. Jet Airways-331 ITR 236 (Bom); I.T.A No. 618/Ahd/2023 Bindu Dharmesh Bhatt, A.Y. 2011-12 iii) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. - 336 ITR 136 )Del); The Ld. AR further submitted that as regards not disclosing "investment in commodities" amounting to Rs.5,99,250/- in ITR, no such investment has been made by the assessee. As regards n…

Shyama Shyam Infradevelopers Private Limited, Agra vs. ITO 2(1)(2), Agra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 503/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshshyama Shyam Vs. Ito, Infradevelopers Pvt Ltd, Ward-2(1)(2), Khasra No. 961, Bhahistabad, Agra Sikandra, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aatcs9899R Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Agarwal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

…eported in 331 ITR 236 (Bom) ; decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 336 ITR 136 (Del) and the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mohammed Junaid Dadani reported in 355 ITR 172 (Guj). The ld CIT(A) had laid more emphasis on provisions of Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act which permits the ld AO to make addition on issues that are not subject matter of reasons recorded for reopening. In our considered opinion, the said addition could be made only if the addition that was subject matter of reasons recorded is also m…

Gujarat Vaibhav Publications Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1359/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37

…ubmitted that it is a settled law that no addition can be made on other issues in absence of addition for the issues based on which the case was reopened. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following decisions:- a) CIT vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani – [2014] 355 ITR 172 (Guj) b) CIT vs Jet Airways – [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bombay) c) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. – [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) 8. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that no addition was made in respect of bogus purchase of Rs.2,00,000/- from M/s. A.M. Enterprise as recorded in the reason and, therefore, the Assessing Officer was not correct in making addition i…

Gujarat Vaibhav Publications Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1358/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37

…ubmitted that it is a settled law that no addition can be made on other issues in absence of addition for the issues based on which the case was reopened. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following decisions:- a) CIT vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani – [2014] 355 ITR 172 (Guj) b) CIT vs Jet Airways – [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bombay) c) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. – [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) 8. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that no addition was made in respect of bogus purchase of Rs.2,00,000/- from M/s. A.M. Enterprise as recorded in the reason and, therefore, the Assessing Officer was not correct in making addition i…

Nitaben Girishbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, while upholding the validity of reopening, we set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) on merits and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law

ITA 1560/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Nitaben Girishbhai Patel The Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) 33/B, Swi Park, Private Plot Vejalpur Madhuvrund Society Ahmedabad. Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aappp 5738 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Assessee By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271ASection 69A

…reassessment proceedings bad in law. Reliance was placed on various judicial pronouncements including the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (331 ITR 236) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Mohmed Juned Dadani (355 ITR 172) to contend that when the Assessing Officer does not ultimately make any addition on the very ground which formed the basis of the reasons recorded for reopening, he cannot proceed to make additions on some other issues which did not form part of such recorded reasons. settled proposition that addition cannot be sustained on issues which are not…

M R Patel and Sons, South Tower, Ambli Bopal Road vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan (Vejalpur), Nr Sachin Tower, Anandnagar Prahladnagar Road, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 523/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…the reasons recorded [bogus loan transaction] for reopening of assessment, which is not permissible in law as held by Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways [I] Ltd [331 ITR 236] and jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Mohmed Juned Dadani [355 ITR 172]. 9. Further perusal of documents clearly shows that the assessee discharged its initial onus to establish that the transaction as not a I.T.A No. 523/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 11 M R Patel And Sons vs. PCIT loan transaction but regular business transaction. In support of its claim the assessee produced all the details of loading supervisio…

Bhagirath Pakharia, Jhansi vs. Ward 2 (3)(1), Jhansi

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 571/AGR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.565/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.566/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 567/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 568/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 569/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 570/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 571/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Bhagirath Pakharia Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 124, Nanak Ganj, Sipri Bazar, Ward 2(3)(1), Jhansi. Vs. Jhansi (Up) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amdpp-6709-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Prarthana Jalan, Ca – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025

For Appellant: Ms. Prarthana Jalan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

…ion 148/147 proceedings against the assessee for the reason of computing capital gains by invoking section 50C of the Act, but ended up making section 69A unexplained money addition only which is not sustainable in light of CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani [(2013) 258 CTR 268 (Guj.), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). We, thus quash the impugned reopening on this first and foremost legal issue which renders all other pleadings as academic. Ordered accordingly. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. 6. Taking the same view,…

Bhagirath Pakhria, Jhansi vs. Ward 2 (3)(1), Jhansi

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 570/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.565/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.566/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 567/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 568/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 569/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 570/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 571/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Bhagirath Pakharia Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 124, Nanak Ganj, Sipri Bazar, Ward 2(3)(1), Jhansi. Vs. Jhansi (Up) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amdpp-6709-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Prarthana Jalan, Ca – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025

For Appellant: Ms. Prarthana Jalan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

…ion 148/147 proceedings against the assessee for the reason of computing capital gains by invoking section 50C of the Act, but ended up making section 69A unexplained money addition only which is not sustainable in light of CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani [(2013) 258 CTR 268 (Guj.), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). We, thus quash the impugned reopening on this first and foremost legal issue which renders all other pleadings as academic. Ordered accordingly. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. 6. Taking the same view,…

Bhagirath Pakharia, Jhansi vs. Ward 2 (3)(1), Jhansi

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 569/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.565/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.566/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 567/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 568/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 569/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 570/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 571/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Bhagirath Pakharia Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 124, Nanak Ganj, Sipri Bazar, Ward 2(3)(1), Jhansi. Vs. Jhansi (Up) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amdpp-6709-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Prarthana Jalan, Ca – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025

For Appellant: Ms. Prarthana Jalan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

…ion 148/147 proceedings against the assessee for the reason of computing capital gains by invoking section 50C of the Act, but ended up making section 69A unexplained money addition only which is not sustainable in light of CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani [(2013) 258 CTR 268 (Guj.), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). We, thus quash the impugned reopening on this first and foremost legal issue which renders all other pleadings as academic. Ordered accordingly. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. 6. Taking the same view,…

Bhagirath Pakharia, Jhansi vs. Ward 2 (3)(1), Jhansi

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 568/AGR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.565/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.566/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 567/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 568/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 569/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 570/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 571/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Bhagirath Pakharia Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 124, Nanak Ganj, Sipri Bazar, Ward 2(3)(1), Jhansi. Vs. Jhansi (Up) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amdpp-6709-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Prarthana Jalan, Ca – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025

For Appellant: Ms. Prarthana Jalan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

…ion 148/147 proceedings against the assessee for the reason of computing capital gains by invoking section 50C of the Act, but ended up making section 69A unexplained money addition only which is not sustainable in light of CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani [(2013) 258 CTR 268 (Guj.), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). We, thus quash the impugned reopening on this first and foremost legal issue which renders all other pleadings as academic. Ordered accordingly. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. 6. Taking the same view,…

Bhagirath Pakharia, Jhansi vs. Ward 2 (3)(1), Jhansi

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 567/AGR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.565/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.566/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 567/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 568/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 569/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 570/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 571/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Bhagirath Pakharia Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 124, Nanak Ganj, Sipri Bazar, Ward 2(3)(1), Jhansi. Vs. Jhansi (Up) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amdpp-6709-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Prarthana Jalan, Ca – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025

For Appellant: Ms. Prarthana Jalan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

…ion 148/147 proceedings against the assessee for the reason of computing capital gains by invoking section 50C of the Act, but ended up making section 69A unexplained money addition only which is not sustainable in light of CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani [(2013) 258 CTR 268 (Guj.), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). We, thus quash the impugned reopening on this first and foremost legal issue which renders all other pleadings as academic. Ordered accordingly. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. 6. Taking the same view,…

Bhagirath Pakharia, Jhansi vs. Ward 2 (3)(1), Jhansi

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 566/AGR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Apr 2025AY 2013-14
Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

…ion 148/147 proceedings against the assessee for the reason of computing capital gains by invoking section 50C of the Act, but ended up making section 69A unexplained money addition only which is not sustainable in light of CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani [(2013) 258 CTR 268 (Guj.), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). We, thus quash the impugned reopening on this first and foremost legal issue which renders all other pleadings as academic. Ordered accordingly. 6. This assessee's appeal is allowed. Taking the same view,…

Bhagirath Pakharia, Jhansi vs. Ward 2 (3)(1), Jhansi

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 565/AGR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.565/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.566/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 567/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 568/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 569/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 570/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 571/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Bhagirath Pakharia Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 124, Nanak Ganj, Sipri Bazar, Ward 2(3)(1), Jhansi. Vs. Jhansi (Up) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amdpp-6709-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Prarthana Jalan, Ca – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025

For Appellant: Ms. Prarthana Jalan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

…ion 148/147 proceedings against the assessee for the reason of computing capital gains by invoking section 50C of the Act, but ended up making section 69A unexplained money addition only which is not sustainable in light of CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani [(2013) 258 CTR 268 (Guj.), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). We, thus quash the impugned reopening on this first and foremost legal issue which renders all other pleadings as academic. Ordered accordingly. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. 6. Taking the same view,…

Ashok Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ITO WD-2(1), Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1225/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv.& Sh. Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 5

…d but he was not so justified when the reasons for initiation of those proceedings ceased to survive. The observations of the Hon'ble High Court on pages 147 and 148 of in 336 ITR 136 are worth noting. 2.2.4 Also kindly refer CIT vs Mohmed Juned Dadani (2013) 355 ITR 172 (Guj) (DC 7- 15). However, it may be clarified that, nothing came to the notice of the AO as contemplated by Explanation-III to S. 147 as much as the AO himself, first, made inquiries through notices u/s142, and when no reply was received, made the impugned additions and disallowances. Therefore, the AO cannot take help of the said Explanation, n…

Kailash Chand, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 565/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dinesh Badgujar, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234A

…d but he was not so justified when the reasons for initiation of those proceedings ceased to survive. The observations of the Hon’ble High Court on pages 147 and 148 of in 336 ITR 136 are worth noting. 2.2.4 Also kindly refer CIT vs Mohmed Juned Dadani (2013) 355 ITR 172 (Guj) (DC 7-15). However, it may be clarified that, nothing came to the notice of the AO as contemplated by Explanation-III to S. 147 as much as the AO himself, first, made inquiries through notices u/s142, and when no reply was received, made the impugned additions and disallowances. Therefore, the AO cannot take help of the said Explanation, no…

Smt. Teena Garg, Chandigarh vs. PCIT, Panchkula

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 466/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Feb 2025AY 2015-16
For Respondent: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 263

…he conclusion that if no addition on account of reasons recorded is being made then no addition on any other count could be made. Reliance was rightly placed by the assessee on the judgement of Gujarat High Court in case of CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadlani (2013) 355 ITR 172 with which we too conquer. Further we have perused the reasons for reopening u/s 147/148 of the Act at page 2 B of paper book where no reasons have been given to reopen the assessment on this score of purchase of immovable properties. We further hold that merely because ROI for A.Y 2015-16 is filed for Rs.19,23,970/-is no ground to order fresh a…

Bhagirath Pakhria, Jhansi vs. Ward 2 (3)(1), Jhansi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 60/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 69A

…roceedings against the assessee for the reason of computing capital gains by invoking section 50C of the Act, but ended up making section 69A unexplained money addition only which is not sustainable in light of CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned 2 | P a g e Dadani [(2013) 258 CTR 268 (Guj.), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). We, thus quash the impugned reopening on this first and foremost legal issue which renders all other pleadings as academic. Ordered accordingly. 6. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced i…

Sunny Tarunkumar Doshi, Jetpur vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 288/AHD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 56(1)(vii)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

…the basic purchase deeds and if there is no adequate consideration of the deed whether it is registered or not does not have any sanctity per se. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani, 355 ITR 172. The Ld. AR, on the legal ground, has given the following comments which are as under :- - It is respectfully submitted that the assessment records under Section 143(3) of the Act, as placed on record by the Revenue, clearly indicate that the question of whether any amount was paid by the assessee for the purchase of the immovable property was du…

Dattu Sampat Vankhede, Nagpur vs. PCIT-2, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 581/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Dilip LohiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.581/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year : 2014–15) Dattu Sampat Vankhede Lauva Kadgaon Road ……………. Appellant Lava, Wadi, Nagpur 440 023 PAN – AUGPV1832M v/s Principal Commissioner of Income Tax–2 ……………. Respondent Nagpur Assessee by : Shri Dilip Lohiya Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 28/01/2025 Date of Order – 29/01/2025 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the impugned order dated 22/02/2021, passed under section…