How many judgments cite CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.?

694 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (331 ITR 236), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 144B, Section 234B, Section 151.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.

331 ITR 236High Court2011#78 most cited

What is CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. authority for?

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

694

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 383,853 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Jet Airways · Section 147 · Section 148 · reassessment jurisdiction · income escaping assessment · reason to believe · Explanation 3 · scope of reassessment · additions beyond initial reasons · invalid reassessment · 331 ITR 236

Also reported as

30 Taxmann.com 1239 CTR 183

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 234B Section 151 Section 271(1)(c)Section 145(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(40)section 148(2)reason to believe income escaping assessment escapement of income live link tangible material rejection of books of account reopening of assessment interest under section 234b section 254(1)change of opinion

Judgments citing CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.

Rajya Rakhiv Police Karmachari Sahakari Patsantha Maryadit, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 14(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 171/PUN/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.171/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

…eopened u/s 147 for the reason of cash deposit and no addition is made on account of cash deposit and therefore the action of disallowance of claim is not warranted, in view of Jurisdictional High court judgment in case of CIT V/S. Jet Airways (() Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bombay). 2 Rajya Rakhiv Police Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit 2. Without prejudice to the above ground, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO erred in making an addition of Rs.30,51,273/- being deduction claimed u/s 80P of the IT Act by disregarding the appellant's contention that appellant is a credit co…

Aman Chaudhary, Gautam Buddha Nagar vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Gautam Buddha Nagar

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1877/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1877/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Sh. Aman Chaudhary, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O Late Sh. Asha Ram, Shanti Ward-1(1), Niwas, H. No. 620, Chakki Wali Noida, Gali, Atta, Sector-27, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Uttar Pradesh-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajtpc5847K Assessee By: Self Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.06.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1070503578(1) Dated 20.11.2024, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: SelfFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 1877/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Sh. Aman Chaudhary, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/o Late Sh. Asha Ram, Shanti Ward-1(1), Niwas, H. No. 620, Chakki Wali Noida, Gali, Atta, Sector-27, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Uttar Pradesh-201301 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AJTPC5847K Assessee by: Self Revenue by : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 04.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, D…

Shri Nagichana Mahila Doodh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali Ltd., at. Nagichana, Tal. Mangrol, Dist. Junagadh vs. The ITO Ward-1, Junagadh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 847/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, ld.SR.DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण,राजकोट"यायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA No.847/RJT/2024 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2018-2019 ShriNagichana Mahila The ITO, Ward-1 बनाम DoodhSahakariMandali Ltd. Junagadh. At Nagichana-Junagadh Vs. Tal. Mangrol. PAN No. : AAOAS5952L : (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by : Shri D.M. Rindani, ld.AR राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue by :Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, ld.SR.DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 06/03/2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date…

Oasis Securities Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai

ITA 1953/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250

…t, made the addition of Rs.1,70,970/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules 1962 (in short ‘the Rules’), which is not permissible in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways Ltd. 331 ITR 236, wherein it has been held as under: “That where no addition was made on the ground for which the assessment was reopened, then no further addition/disallowance on a fresh issue could have been made”. 5. The Ld. D.R. on the contrary has submitted that in fact the AO has given effect to the order passed by the then Ld. CIT(A) order dated 16.03.20…

Neha Goel, Faridabad vs. PCIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 2624/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Neha Goel, Vs. Pcit, H. No. 585 Sector 15 Faridabad. Faridabad 121007. Pan No.Ahcpg6493Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 263

…eyes of law. The same is to be declared as void ab initio. Reliance in this regard was rightly placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (1) Ltd. (2011) 239 CTR (Bom) 183: (2011) 52 DTR (Bom) 71: (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom). When an assessment framed by the learned AO is unsustainable in the eyes of law, the said invalid and illegal order cannot be subject matter of s. 263 proceedings. On this count also, the revision order passed by the learned Principal CIT under s. 263 of the Act deserves to be quashed. The coordinate bench of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case…

Subhash Chandra, Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Department, Agra

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 6449/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 56(2)(vii)

…3. At the very outset, Ld. AR submitted that the reasons for reopening the case were other than the issue on which the actual addition was made by the AO and while relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways Ltd 331 ITR 236 Bombay, requested to set aside the order of reassessment, Ld. AR also relied upon his written submissions and the same are reproduced here in below: 1. The case pertains to Mr. Subhash Chandra (PAN: AFEPC7113H) (herein after ‘assessee/ appellant’), an individual non resident of India, for the Assessment Year (‘AY') 2016-17. The Income Tax Depar…

Kogod Basavaraju Jayachandra, Hassan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result the ITA No

ITA 1618/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

…IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1617and1618/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2015-16and 2017-18 Shri. Kogod Basavaraju Jayachandra, Vs. DCIT, 1 Gulagalale Estate, Bhage Post, Central Circle – 1(2), Sakaleshpura Taluk, Bangalore. Hassan Gulagalale Estate 573 214, Karnataka. PAN :AEWPJ 4330 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Ramesh, CA Revenue by : Shri.Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 14.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.05.2025 ORDER Per Laxmi Prasad…

Kogod Basavaraju Jayachandra, Hassan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 1617/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1617and1618/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2015-16and 2017-18 Shri. Kogod Basavaraju Jayachandra, 1 Gulagalale Estate, Bhage Post, Sakaleshpura Taluk, Hassan Gulagalale Estate 573 214, Karnataka. PAN :AEWPJ 4330 E APPELLANT Vs. DCIT, Central Circle – 1(2), Bangalore. RESPONDENT Assessee by Shri. Ramesh, CA Revenue by Shri.Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing 14.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 26.05.2025 ORDER Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu,…

Smt. Nishita Nandish, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1616/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

…IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1614 to 1616/Bang/2024 Assessment Years :2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 Smt. Nishita Nandish, Vs. DCIT, C 12 Villa, C 12 Epsllon Layout, Central Circle – 1(2), Yemluru Main Road, Bangalore. Next to CGI, Yemluru, Bangalore - 560 037. PAN :ADPPN 6775 R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Ramesh, CA Revenue by : Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 23.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.05.2025 ORDER Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accou…

Smt. Nishita Nandish, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1615/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

Smt. Nishita Nandish, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1614/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

Veerendra Kumar Patil, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1658/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

…IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1656 to 1658/Bang/2024 Assessment Years :2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri. Veerendra Kumar Patil, Vs. DCIT, 9D Habitat Crest, Hoodi, Opp Hotel Zuri Central Circle – 1(2), Whitefield MN RD, Mahadevapura, Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560 048. PAN : ALHPP 1185 H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Ramesh, CA Revenue by : Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 01.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22.05.2025 ORDER Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accounta…

Ankit Garg, Faridabad vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 1(1), Haryana

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1021/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Ankit Garg, Vs. Assessing Officer, H. No. 537, Ward-1(1), Sector-14, Faridabad, Haryana Haryan Pan: Akepg7046C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Charitra Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.05.2025 Order

Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ing Officer had not made any addition qua the above sole reason of reopening, his failure to examine any other issue on which no addition could have been made going by Ranbaxy Laboratory Vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.); and, therefore, we hereby conclude that the above assessment framed on 11th March, 2022 is neither an erroneous one much less that causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue so as to trigger section 263 revision mechanism. We accordingly reverse learned PCIT’s revision directions herein and restore the Assessing Officer’s assessment…

Gazala Hassan Chariyari, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 8(1)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed

ITA 5350/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Gazala Hassan Chariyari, Ito Ward– 8(1)(1) Vs. Stall No. 9A, Dadani Rizwan Manzil, Aayakar Bhavan, 124, M E S Marg, Zanda Galli Off, Maharshi Karve Road, Memonwada Road, Mumbai-400 020. Mubmai-400 003 Pan/Gir No. Aaepc3430G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(1)Section 69A

…ts that has a strong case against the validity of additions in the assessment order. To support his submission, the ld. AR relied a number of decisions in his written submissions, but mainly focused on the following decision:-  PCIT Vs Jet Airways(I) Ltd, 331 ITR 236(Bombay HC)  DIT Vs. Black & Veatch Prichard, Inc. (Bombay HC),  Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT,336 ITR 136 (Delhi HC),  CIT vs. Monarch Educational Society (ITA No. 101 of 2016 – Delhi HC) and  PCIT vs. Jaguar Buildcon (P) Ltd. ITA No.765/2023 (Delhi HC). 3. In support of ground No.3, the ld AR of the assessee submits that during the asses…

Arun Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5489/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmanarun Tyagi, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (1), C/O Ch. No.206-207, Ansal Satyam, Ghaziabad. Rdc, Rajnagar, Ghaziabad – 201 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Awdpa3342A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri B.S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2025 Date Of Order : 09.05.2025 O R D E R 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 25.09.2024 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1 Because, The Order Of Learned Lower Authority Is Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case. 2. Because, Ld. Cit (A) Grossly Erred In Sustaining The Impugned Order & Validity Of Proceedings As 'Reason' Became Non-Existent & Admittedly Ld. Ao Has Made No Addition On The Reason For Issuance Of Notice U/S 148, Hence Subsequent Proceedings/Other Additions Are Illegal In View Of Ration Of Oriental Bank Of Commerce - 99 Taxmann.Com 312 (Sc), 49 Taxmann.Com 485 (Del.) Etc.

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Anand, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151

…r Assessing Officer proceeded to make the addition on the issue of another transaction which was not the reasons recorded for reopening of the same. He submitted that the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2010) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT (2011) 335 ITR 136 (Del.) squarely applies to the case in hand and he prayed that the reassessment proceedings itself is bad in law, deserves to be quashed. 5 4. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that…

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

…us Ld PCIT has revised the assessment order which is different [business expenses] from 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 transacti…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Delhi vs. Artistic Finance Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

ITA 2650/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ot survive, the re-opening is bad in law in terms of 9 decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ATS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs ACIT (supra). Even this issue is considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vsJet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bombay) wherein it is held :- “Explanation 3 does not and cannot override the necessity of fulfilling the conditions set out in the substantive part of section 147. An Explanation to a statutory provision is intended to explain its contents and cannot be construed to override it or render the substance or core nugatory. Section 147 has this eff…

Institute Management Committee Iti Jhalawar, Jhalawar vs. ITO Ward Jhalawar, Jhalawar

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 41/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee In This Appeal Has Raised The Following Grounds;

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 10Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 234

…ourse of proceedings of assessment or reassessment of escaped income, and which he intends to take into account, he would be required to issue a fresh notice under s.148.- CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 239 CTR (Bom) 183 : (2011) 52 DTR (Bom) 71 : (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) concurred with. The very basis of initiation of proceedings for which reasons to believe were recorded were income escaping assessment in respect of items of club fees, gifts and presents, etc., but the same having not been done, the AO proceeded to reduce the claim of deduction under ss.80HH and 80-1 which as per above discussion was not p…

Institute Management Committee Iti Jhalawar, Jhalawar vs. ITO Ward Jhalawar, Jhalawar

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 39/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee In This Appeal Has Raised The Following Grounds;

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 10Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 234

Shri Atul Srivastava, Agra vs. PCIT-1, Agra

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

ITA 57/AGR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…of the case including departmental record, ITBA Portal etc. the following conclusions are drawn: 11 | P a g e ITA No.56 & 57/Agr/2022 The Assessee's entire reply revolves around the Hon'ble Maharashtra High Court decision in the case of CIT v/s Jet Airways [331 ITR 236] as quoted by the Assessee that "if no addition had been made by A.O. in Asstt Order on basis of such reasons recorded. Then in such circumstance the Notice U/S 148 becomes invalid then no additions can be made for any other income." However, no relief can be given to the Assessee on the basis of the above decision as it has been clearly enumerat…