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

Issues it is cited on

section 2(40)section 148(2)reason to believeincome escaping assessmentescapement of incomelive linktangible materialrejection of books of accountreopening of assessmentinterest under section 234bsection 254(1)change of opinion

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

Nirmal Bajaj, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 1243/CHANDI/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jul 2018AY 2001-02
Section 147

…answer the referred question in favour of the assessee, in the affirmative, that the Tribunal was right in cancelling the reassessment.” 6. Identical view has also been taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) holding that where the Assessing officer does not assess income for which reasons were recorded u/s 147 of the Act, he cannot assess other income u/s 147 of the Act. 7. In this case, though the Assessing officer in the reasons for reopening of the assessment recorded that the assessee had received bogus accommodation entries for a tot…

Preet Bajaj, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 1242/CHANDI/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jul 2018AY 2001-02
Section 147

…answer the referred question in favour of the assessee, in the affirmative, that the Tribunal was right in cancelling the reassessment.” 6. Identical view has also been taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) holding that where the Assessing officer does not assess income for which reasons were recorded u/s 147 of the Act, he cannot assess other income u/s 147 of the Act. 7. In this case, though the Assessing officer in the reasons for reopening of the assessment recorded that the assessee had received bogus accommodation entries for a tot…

DCIT, Chennai vs. The Official Liquidator M/S. Mascon Global Ltd. (in Liquidation), Chennai

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 634/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…on was made on the reason, for which the assessment was reopened, is it open to the Assessing Officer to assess some other income independently other than the reasons recorded? This question was examined by the Bombay High Court in Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236. The Bombay High Court, after considering the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Vipan Khanna (2002) 255 ITR 220, found that Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act lifts the embargo, which was inserted by judicial interpretation, on the making of assessment or reassessment on the grounds other than those on the basis of which a notice wa…

DCIT, Chennai vs. The Official Liquidator M/S. Mascon Global Ltd. (in Liquidation), Chennai

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 633/CHNY/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…on was made on the reason, for which the assessment was reopened, is it open to the Assessing Officer to assess some other income independently other than the reasons recorded? This question was examined by the Bombay High Court in Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236. The Bombay High Court, after considering the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Vipan Khanna (2002) 255 ITR 220, found that Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act lifts the embargo, which was inserted by judicial interpretation, on the making of assessment or reassessment on the grounds other than those on the basis of which a notice wa…

DCIT, Chennai vs. The Official Liquidator M/S. Mascon Global Ltd. (in Liquidation), Chennai

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 632/CHNY/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…on was made on the reason, for which the assessment was reopened, is it open to the Assessing Officer to assess some other income independently other than the reasons recorded? This question was examined by the Bombay High Court in Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236. The Bombay High Court, after considering the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Vipan Khanna (2002) 255 ITR 220, found that Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act lifts the embargo, which was inserted by judicial interpretation, on the making of assessment or reassessment on the grounds other than those on the basis of which a notice wa…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Mascon Global Ltd., Chennai

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1139/CHNY/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…on was made on the reason, for which the assessment was reopened, is it open to the Assessing Officer to assess some other income independently other than the reasons recorded? This question was examined by the Bombay High Court in Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236. The Bombay High Court, after considering the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Vipan Khanna (2002) 255 ITR 220, found that Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act lifts the embargo, which was inserted by judicial interpretation, on the making of assessment or reassessment on the grounds other than those on the basis of which a notice wa…

ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Meenakshi N Shah, Mumbai

ITA 7082/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

Section 68

…pen to be investigated and decided by the assessing authority. The assessee would be entitled to take all the points before the assessing authority. The appeals were dismissed. 7.30. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jet Airways (I) Ltd .331 ITR 236(Bom) held as under: “Explanation 3 to section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 2009, with effect from April 1, 1989. The effect of the Explanation is that even though the notice that has been issued under section 148 containing the reasons for reopening the assessment does not contain a reference to a p…

Pragati Finsec Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward -20(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 634/DEL/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalita No. 634/Del./2018 Assessment Year : 2002-03

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. B.R.Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

…IT vs. Chiel Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 549 (Del) and CIT VS. Adhunik Niryat Ispat Ltd. (2011) 63 DTR 0212 (Del) has held to this extent. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom). When I test the facts of the instant case on the touchstone of the principle as discussed hereinabove, it turns out that the solitary reason taken note of by the AO before issuing notice u/s 148 is non-existent and, resultantly, there is no question of making any other addition. I, therefore, set aside the assessment order passed by the…

M/S Deepraj Hospital P Ltd, Hathras vs. ITO 3(5), Hathras

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 41/AGR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra01 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA (SMC) BENCH: AGRA BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No. 41/Agra/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11) M/s Deepraj Hospital (P) Ltd., C/o Vs..ITO, 3(5), Rajesh Gautam, Shyam Press, Hathras. Aligarh Road, Hathras. PAN No.AADCD2093G (Assessee) (Revenue) I.T.A No. 40/Agra/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) M/s Charan Singh Ice & Cold Vs..ITO, 3(5), Storage (P) Ltd., Gambhir Patti, Hathras. Bisana, Agra Road, Hathras. PAN No.AACCC4321M (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by Shri Pankaj Gargh, AR. Revenue by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR. Date of Hearing 15.05.2018 Date of Pro…

M/S Charan Singh Ice & Storage P Ltd, Hathras vs. ITO 3(5), Hathras

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 40/AGR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra01 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA (SMC) BENCH: AGRA BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No. 41/Agra/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11) M/s Deepraj Hospital (P) Ltd., C/o Vs..ITO, 3(5), Rajesh Gautam, Shyam Press, Hathras. Aligarh Road, Hathras. PAN No.AADCD2093G (Assessee) (Revenue) I.T.A No. 40/Agra/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) M/s Charan Singh Ice & Cold Vs..ITO, 3(5), Storage (P) Ltd., Gambhir Patti, Hathras. Bisana, Agra Road, Hathras. PAN No.AACCC4321M (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by Shri Pankaj Gargh, AR. Revenue by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR. Date of Hearing 15.05.2018 Date of Pro…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Vimal Chand Surana HUF, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 437/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 May 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292C

…sessment. Hence, no actual addition has been made on the reason for which the assessment itself was reopened on basis of as the addition is made only to safeguard the interest of the revenue. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bombay) held that if the Assessing officer does not assess the income for which reasons were recorded u/s 147 for reopening of assessment, he cannot assess any other Income u/s 147.This ratio of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court is based upon the ratio of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Shri Ram Singh [2008] 306 ITR 343.…

Dr. Meena Dixit, Mumbai vs. ITO 34(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 6362/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…RBI bonds have also been purchased through bank accounts only. Consequently, the Assessing Officer did not make any addition in respect of above cited three transactions. He submitted that Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. 331 ITR 236, has held that if after issuing a notice under section 148, the Assessing Officer accepted the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, it is not open to him independently to assess some other income. Accordingly,…

Venu Gopal Karavadi, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-4(2), Hyderabad

In the result appeal filed by Assessee is allowed

ITA 202/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiahassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Venu Gopal Karavadi, Vs. Ito, Hyderabad. Ward – 4(2), Hyderabad. Pan- Bdbpk1736J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.A Sai Prasad Shri B. Suresh Babu Revenue By : Date Of Hearing : 25-04-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-04-2018 Order Per Shri B. Ramakotaiah, Am: This Is An Appeal By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Hyderabad Dated 06.10.2016. Apart From The Issues Originally Contested In Appeal I.E Addition U/S Sec. 68 Of The It Act Of Two Deposits Of Rs. 4.45 Lakhs & Rs. 7.5 Laksh In Two Banks, Assessee Also Raised The Additional Grounds That Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 147 Of The It Act Ceased To Survive As The Officer Has Not Made Any Additions On The Issue On Which The Reasons For Reopening Are Based, Hence, A.O Is Not Justified In Making The Addition On Other Issues. We Have Heard Ld. Counsel & Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.A Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 50CSection 54Section 68

…he Income Tax Act on the given facts and circumstances of the case does not apply. Moreover, in which case and when Explanation- 3 would be applicable has been decided by various High Courts, namely, Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., (331 ITR 236); Delhi High Court in case of Ranbaxy Shri Venu Gopal Karavadi, Hyderabad. Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT (336 ITR 136); Chhattisgarh High Court in case of ACIT Vs. Major Deepak Mehta (3441TR 641) and Gujarat High Court in case of CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani. In view of the consistent decision of these High Courts, we are not in a position to take a d…

ITO 6(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Juliet Industries Ltd. (Formerly Known As Juliet Products Ltd.), Mumbai

ITA 5975/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5452/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Juliet Industries Limited Income Tax Officer 6(3)(3) Room No. 524, 5Th Floor A-313 बनाम/ Shah & Nayar Industrial Estate Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Lower Parel M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacj-6924-H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5975/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer 6(3)(3) Juliet Industries Limited Room No. 524, 5Th Floor A-313 बनाम/ Aaykar Bhawan Shah & Nayar Industrial Estate Vs. M.K.Road Lower Parel Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacj-6924-H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Vijay Mehta, Ld.ARFor Respondent: V.Vidhyadhar, Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…reasons to believe was required to be fulfilled before resorting to reassessment proceedings. Our view is fully supported by the observation of our jurisdictional Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT v. Jet Airways Assessment Year 2009-10 (I) Ltd. [2011 331 ITR 236] which has subsequently been followed by Delhi High Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT [2011 336 ITR 136]. The decision by Hon’ble Bombay High Court has been rendered after considering the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Sun Engg. Works P. Ltd. [198 ITR 297] and several other judgments and the Hon’ble Court have held as under:- 1…

Juliet Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 5452/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5452/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Juliet Industries Limited Income Tax Officer 6(3)(3) Room No. 524, 5Th Floor A-313 बनाम/ Shah & Nayar Industrial Estate Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Lower Parel M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacj-6924-H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5975/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer 6(3)(3) Juliet Industries Limited Room No. 524, 5Th Floor A-313 बनाम/ Aaykar Bhawan Shah & Nayar Industrial Estate Vs. M.K.Road Lower Parel Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacj-6924-H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Vijay Mehta, Ld.ARFor Respondent: V.Vidhyadhar, Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…reasons to believe was required to be fulfilled before resorting to reassessment proceedings. Our view is fully supported by the observation of our jurisdictional Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT v. Jet Airways Assessment Year 2009-10 (I) Ltd. [2011 331 ITR 236] which has subsequently been followed by Delhi High Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT [2011 336 ITR 136]. The decision by Hon’ble Bombay High Court has been rendered after considering the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Sun Engg. Works P. Ltd. [198 ITR 297] and several other judgments and the Hon’ble Court have held as under:- 1…

Atomstroyexport, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT (It) RG-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1000/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm M/S. Atomstroyexport Vs. Additional Director Of Representative Assessee: Income Tax (It)-1, Mumbai Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Ltd., Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan Central Avenue Anushakti Nagar Mumbai – 400 094 Pan/Gir No.Aafca3658N Appellant) .. Respondent) Additional Director Of Vs. M/S. Atomstroyexport Income Tax (It)-1, Mumbai Representative Assessee: Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Ltd., Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan Central Avenue Anushakti Nagar Mumbai – 400 094 Pan/Gir No. Aafca3658N Appellant) .. Respondent)

For Appellant: Income Tax (IT)-1, Mumbai
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 195Section 195(2)Section 44Section 44B

…of NPCIL held that the payment made to the assessee company under the above contracts are covered by the provisions of M/s.Atomstroyexport Section 44BBB. Reliance was placed by learned AR on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jet Airways 331 ITR 236. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of German Remedies Ltd., reported at 285 ITR 26. 11. Learned AR also placed on record, the order of Tribunal for the A.Y.2006-07 dated 04/12/2013 wherein exactly similar issue of reopening has been decided in favour of the assessee. The precise observation of the T…

Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle I(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2028/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Nrs Ganesan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 2027 & 2028/Chny/2017 Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals(P) Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-I(3), Chennai [Pan: Aaacc1356 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundararaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : CHENNAI [Before Hon’ble Shri NRS Ganesan, JM & Hon’ble Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A Nos. 2027 & 2028/CHNY/2017 Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals(P) Ltd. -vs- ACIT, Circle-I(3), Chennai [PAN: AAACC1356 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri S. Sundararaman, CA For the Revenue : Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT Date of Hearing : 17.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 08.02.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. These appeals by the Assessee arise out of the common orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5…

Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle I(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2027/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Nrs Ganesan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 2027 & 2028/Chny/2017 Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals(P) Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-I(3), Chennai [Pan: Aaacc1356 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundararaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : CHENNAI [Before Hon’ble Shri NRS Ganesan, JM & Hon’ble Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A Nos. 2027 & 2028/CHNY/2017 Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals(P) Ltd. -vs- ACIT, Circle-I(3), Chennai [PAN: AAACC1356 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri S. Sundararaman, CA For the Revenue : Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT Date of Hearing : 17.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 08.02.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. These appeals by the Assessee arise out of the common orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5…

DCIT CC 3(1) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Windworld (India) Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5714/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5714/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit. C.C.-3(1), M/S Wind World (India) Limited Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Enercon Aayakar Bhavan, बिधम/ (India) Ltd. A-9, Enercon Tower, M.K. Road Veera Desai Road, Veera Vs. Mumbai- 20 Industrial Estate, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaace0319D (अपीलाथी/Revenue) (प्रत्यथी /Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Ghosh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, D.R
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…served that now when the A.O had not made the addition of Rs.17,40,27,652/- on the basis of which the case of the assessee was reopened, therefore, keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom), the reassessment framed in the hands of the assessee could not be sustained and was liable to be quashed. 9. The CIT(A) after perusing the facts available on record observed that the A.O received information from DDIT(Inv.), as per which the average bogus purchase of the assessee for the F.Y 2009-10 to 2011- 12 formed 1.04% of the turnover…

Shri Rishi Kumar Gupta, Agra vs. CIT Circle 1, Agra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 299/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 4Section 54F

…truction which favors the assessee must be adopted. This is an Assessment Year: 2011-12 accepted rule of construction recognized by the courts is several to is decision. For this purpose, he relied on the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) 2. Ranbaxy Lab Ltd. vs. CIT 336 ITR 136 (Del.) 9. The ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and contending that once the validity of the notice is survived the assessment is open to make addition on any account for which no reasons have been recorded. The Explanation-3 to Section 147 is inserted to provide that AO may ass…