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.

Dipti Mehta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 43(2), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2031/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2009-10 Dipti Mehta Income Tax Officer बनाम / 161/1 M.G. Road, Ground Ward-45(2), 3, Govt. V/S. Floor, Kokata-700007 Place,Kolkata-101 [Pan No.Aespm 0353 A] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 23-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 30-01-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata’S Order Dated 02.07.2018 Passed In Case No. 22/Cit(A)-13/W-45(2)/Kol/2015-16 Involving Proceedings U/S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. I Come To Former Issue Of Validity Of Re-Opening In Question. This Assessee Had Filed Her Return For The Impugned Assessment Year On 28.07.2009 Declaring Taxable Income Of ₹3,99,390/-. The Same Stood Summarily Processed. The Assessing Officer Thereafter Formed Reasons To Believe As Per The Investigation Wing’S Report That The Assessee Had Taken A Loss Entry From M/S Mahasagar Group. This Alleged Loss Entry Involved An Amount Of ₹2,71,500/-. The Assessing Officer Issued Sec. 148 Notice Dated 03.02.2014. The Assessee In Turn Requested To Treat Her Original Return As The One Filed In Furtherance To Sec. 148 Proceedings. The Assessing Officer Thereafter Completed Re- Assessment On 28.02.2015 Disallowing The Sum In Question Of ₹28,891/- U/S 14A R.W.S. Rule 8D(2) In The Nature Of Direct & Administrative Expenditure To The Tune Of

Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…g that she had availed an accommodation entry of loss amounting to ₹2,71,500- whereas he disallowed the amount in question of ₹28,891/- only during the course of re-assessment (supra). Hon'ble Mumbai high court’s decision in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom)., Ranbaxy Laboratories vs. CIT (2011) 366 ITR 136 (Del) and ACIT vs. Major Deepak Mehta (2012) 336 ITR 136 (Chhattisgarh) hold that such a re-assessments not making any addition qua the specified reasons of re-opening but on other issues are not sustainable. I therefore quash the impugned re-assessment for this sole reason. 3. This assessee…

Preeti Bajaj, Ludhiana vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessees are hereby allowed

ITA 172/CHANDI/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Jan 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: The Itat On 08.08.2017 Which Led To The Disposal Of The Appeals For Non- Representation Was On Account Of The Bonafide Belief That The Itas 171 & 172/Chd/2017 Page 2 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri Saarbjit Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 254(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “एकल सद"यीय’, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘SMC’ CHANDIGARH "ीमती "दवा "संह, "या"यक सद"य BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 171/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Nirmal Bajaj, The DCIT, बनाम Circle 6 70A, Shastri Nagar, VS Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. :ABJPB4766G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 172/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 Ms. Preeti Bajaj, The DCIT, बनाम Circle 6 2746/1, Gurdev Nagar, VS Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. :AFVPB6764…

Nirmal Bajaj, Ludhiana vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessees are hereby allowed

ITA 171/CHANDI/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Jan 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: The Itat On 08.08.2017 Which Led To The Disposal Of The Appeals For Non- Representation Was On Account Of The Bonafide Belief That The Itas 171 & 172/Chd/2017 Page 2 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri Saarbjit Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 254(2)

Shri Sumer Singh Chandel, Roopangarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kishangarh

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

ITA 1037/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Batheja (ITP)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69

…ng to future and option which was the subject matter of assumption of jurisdiction U/s 147 of the Act does not survive. 9. In this regard, useful reference can be drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.[2011] 331 ITR 236, while examining Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act, the Hon’ble High Court has held that the Assessing Officer has to necessarily assess/re-assess the income which escaped assessment on the basis of the formation of the reasonable belief for opening the assessment. It is only on assessing/reassessing such income which has escaped assessment…

Prakash R.Oswal, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 5(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2658/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2658/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Prakash R. Oswal, C/O. Shah Khandelwal Jain & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Riverside Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune-411001. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaapo6465D …. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. ""यथ" / Respondent Ward- 5(3), Pune. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Thakkar & Shri Rishab Gujrathi : Shri Rajesh Gawali ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By घोषणा क" तारीख / सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 28.12.2018 Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2018 आदेश / Order Per Sushma Chowla, Jm: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A)-4, Pune Dated 12.06.2017 Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11 Against Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Thakkar &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…eleted; then the second addition cannot stand in the hands of the assessee. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee, in this regard, placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., (2010) 331 ITR 236 (Bombay) and also the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Adhunik Niryat Ispat Ltd., (2011) 63 DTR 3 0212 (Delhi). He further placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. Pragati Finsec Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No.634/Del/2018 relating to assessment year 2002-03, order dated 20.06.2018. 5. The learned Dep…

Rita Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-70(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5966/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 80C

…under other heads of income and for this he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sh. Ram Singh (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj.), on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT. [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Delhi). 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not adjudicated this ground of the assessee. 7. Before me the Authorised Representative of the assessee Shri Shantanu Jain and Shri Deepanshu Jain, Adv. Reiterated the s…

Safepack Industries Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2376/PUN/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Dec 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 80HSection 80I

…for making additions for other incomes chargeable to tax which escaped assessment and come to his notice subsequently in the course 10 Safepack Industries Limited of proceedings u/s 147. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) has held to this extent. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Chiel Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 549 (Del). 11. When I test the facts of the instant case on the touchstone of the principle as discussed hereinabove, it turns out that the only reason taken note of by the AO before issuing…

S.Praveen Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO Ward 1 (Tiruvallur), Kancheepuram

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1905/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1905/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012. Shri. S. Praveen Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.33/3, Ground Floor, Ward I, (Tiruvallur), Veerappan Street, Kancheepuram. Sowcarpet, Chennai 600 001. [Pan Aaipp 9343H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sriniranjani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Clement Ramesh Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 148

…submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee, has found resonance with at least three (3) High Courts, i.e., the Bombay High Court, the Gujarat High Court and the Delhi High Court in the following cases : (i) CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom) ; (ii) CIT v. Mohmed Juned Dadani [2013] 355 ITR 172 (Guj) ; Manu/ GJ/0061/2013 ; and (iii) Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Addl. CIT Manu/DE/1935/2014. 23.1. The only High Court, which has taken a contrary view, as it were, is the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of : Majinder Singh Kang v. CIT [2012] 344 ITR 358 (P&H) ; [2012] 25…

The ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat vs. Shri Shakti G. Karnawat, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1504/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Anchaliya, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Smitha V. Nair, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 148

…the Act on account of unexplained loans. The AO in the assessment order treated it as purchases from these concerns which according to him were bogus. Thus, on the strength of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., 331 ITR 236, Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s decision in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT, 336 ITR 136 and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court reported in 355 ITR 172 in the case of CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani, he contended that if no addition was being made on the basis of an issue, for which assessment was reopened, no addition on other issu…

Shri Shakti G. Karnawat, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1381/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Anchaliya, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Smitha V. Nair, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 148

Sushila Devi, Deoghar vs. ACIT Circle-1, Ranchi

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

ITA 275/RAN/2017[07-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Choudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…o the income of the assesse. For this, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Mohd Juned Dadani (2013) 355 ITR 172 (Guj) and the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (i) Ltd., (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom). 8. On the other hand, ld Departmental Representative could not controvert the submission of ld A.R. of the assesse. 9. I have considered the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. I find that this ground of appeal was not raised before the CIT(A) and has been raised before me for t…

Mr. Hari Poddar & Others, Legal Heirs of Late Smt. Pratibha Poddar, Erode vs. DCIT, Erode

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1286/CHNY/2006[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri K. Raghu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Homi Rajvansh, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…ipherals P. Ltd. v. DCIT 394 ITR 733 (Mad), the ld. Counsel for the assessee has argued that the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act is bad in law. He further relied on the relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. 331 ITR 236) and prayed that the assessment order passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act may be set aside. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the order passed by the authorities below. 6. We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below including case law relied 4 I.T…

Nilesh Rameshchandra Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 107/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: N.M.Porwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Asghar Zain VP, Ld. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…ITA.No.107/Mum/2017 Nilesh Rameshchandra Shah Assessment Year-2009-10 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी श""जीत दे,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.107/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Nilesh Rameshchandra Shah Income Tax Officer-14(1)(1) C/o Niton Steels & Alloys Mumbai Cabin No.1, Shop No.4 बनाम/ Ground Floor, 202/204 Vs. J N Nethawa Building 3rd Khumbharwada Lane S.V.P Road, Mumbai-400 004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AM…

Shantaben Parasmal Jain, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 726/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 726/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shantaben Parasmal Jain, Vs. Dcit, 27, Vijay Society, Cir – 3(1), New Khanderao Road., Vadodara. Baroda. Pan No. Abwpj 8597 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri S. N. Dev, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-I, Vadodara [“Cit(A)” In Short] Relevant To Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings & Therefore The Order Passed By The Learned Ao Is Required To Be Quashed. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Confirming The Disallowance Of Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 87,57,789/- As Exempt Income & Adding Back To The Total Income Of The Appellant & Therefore The Learned Ao Should Be Directed To Allow The Claim Of Exempt Income. 3. That The Appellant Craves Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter & Delete Any Grounds Of Appeal Before The Final Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Dev, Sr. D.R

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148

…/- whereas the claim under section 10(38) of Rs. 87,57,789/-has been rejected and in view of the following judgments, the reassessment proceeding is bad in law:- (a) CIT Vs. Mohd Juned Dadani, [2013) 355 ITR 172 (Guj). (b) CIT Vs. Jet Airways (1) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) (c) Shri Bhadresh K. Shah Vs (ITA No.89/Ahd/2012) -Copy of the said order is submitted herewith as Annexure CL-1 & 2 For Ready reference the copy of the reasons for the reassessment along with its covering letter of the Id.A1 is submitted herewith as Annexure PB-1 & 2. 2. In pursuance to the request for providing the reasons for the reasse…

Madhuri Dhananjauy Marathe, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(4), Nashik

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

ITA 1640/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1639 & 1640/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Smt. Madhuri Dhananjay Marathe, 3, Yashodhara Apartment, Chinchkhed Road, At Post Pimpalgaon (B), Taluka- Niphad, Nashik Pan : Amjpm4024B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…count of reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment under section 147/148 of the Act. 6. Before CIT(A), the said issue was raised and reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways India Limited., 331 ITR 236. However, placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of N. Govindraju Vs. ITO, in ITA No.504/2013 dated 01.07.2015, the CIT(A) held that since the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court had delivered the decision after considering the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11 the case of CIT Vs. J…

Madhuri Dhananjauy Marathe, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(4), Nashik

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

ITA 1639/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

Shri Dinesh Agarwal HUF, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 540/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Kabra (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 2

…ment order. Therefore, reopening in bad in law as it is based on the incorrect facts and the alleged transaction does not belong to the assessee. He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. 331 ITR 236 (Bom) and submitted that when the A.O. has not made any addition in respect of income for which he has initiated the proceedings U/s 147/148 of the Act then in absence of any escapement of income, the A.O. cannot make addition independently of some other income. 4. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below…

Binoy Poddar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 33(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 831/KOL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri D.C. Mondal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

…ITA No.831/Kol/2018 Binay Poddar A.Y.2007-08 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘SMC’ KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, AM] Assessment Year : 2007-08 Binay Poddar -versus- I.T.O., Ward-33(1), Kolkata Kolkata (PAN: AFOPP 0372 H) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA For the Respondent: Shri D.C. Mondal, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 18.07.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2018. ORDER PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-(A)-9, Kolkata dated 20.02.2018 for A.Y. 2007-08…

Subrata Saha, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 41(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2395/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Subrata Saha….…………….........…..…….……………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant C/O. D.J. Shah & Co Kalyan Bhawan 2 Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Avqps 9056 F] Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(2), Kolkata……………………………….…….…...…………….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Satyajit Mondal, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 28Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 25Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 143(1)Section 144(1)Section 147Section 250Section 68

…O, in ITA No. 634/Del/2018, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chiel Communications Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 549 (Del) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) held as follows:- “4. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It can be seen from the discussion made supra that the AO resorted to the re- assessment on account of one reason. The addition so consequently made stood deleted in the first appeal. No material has been brought on record to demonstrate th…

Dhara Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2213/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri T.S. Kapooray: 2012-13 Dhara Singh Ito, Ward 1(2), C/O Rupinder Kumar Vs. Ghaziabad Aggarwal, Uttar Pradesh Advocate, Ab-1A/22, Sector-51, Noida -201301 (Pan: Czjps0155A) (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. V.K. Jiwani, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234CSection 48Section 50CSection 54F

…ed that there was no “reasons to believe” that income of the assessee had escaped assessment u/s 147 of the Act for the instant assessment year. Reliance was also placed on the following judgments: i) 336 ITR 136 (Del) M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT ii) 331 ITR 236 (Bom)CIT v. M/s Jet Airways (I) Ltd. iii) 354 ITR 549 (Del) CIT v. Cheil Communication India (P) Ltd. iv) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) CIT v. Shri Ram Sing v) 341 ITR 240 (Del) CIT v. Software Consultants vi) 355 ITR 172 (Guj) CIT v. Mohmed Juned Dadani vii) 394 ITR 733 (Mad Martech Peripherals (P) Ltd. v. DIT) 8 It was also submitted that action u/s 147…