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.

Aditya Logistics (I) P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2408/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2408/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Aditya Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T. 10(3), बनाम/ D-388 Industrial Area, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Midc Kukshet Village, M.K. Road, Navi Mumbai, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 705. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aadcm6294N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran
Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…ipts as well as the amount as reflected as per the TDS certificate, while additions have been made on account of non-deduction of TDS under Chapter XVII-B of the Act. The decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom) is clearly applicable to the instant case and the additions are not sustainable. The re-opening is not valid as no addition has been made by the authorities on account of the reasons on which the assessment was reopened u/s 147/148 of the Act. 8. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A). 9. We have consider…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Randeep Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2453/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2004-05 Income Tax Officer, Ward - Vs. M/S. Randeep Investment 15(2), New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., 202, Mohan Place, Local Shopping Complex, C- Block, Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi Gir/Pan :Aaccr0988D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Date Of Hearing 11.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 16.08.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01/01/2014 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xviii, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2004-05 Raising The Following Grounds: I. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 45,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act Ignoring The Fact That As Per The Information Received From The Investigation Wing Of The Department, The Said Entities Are 2 Ay: 2004-05 Doing No Business Except To Provide Accommodation Entries On Commission Basis. Ii. The Appellant Craves To Be Allowed To Add Any Fresh Grounds Of Appeal And/Or Delete Or Amend Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal.

Section 147Section 68

…ntion, the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of 4 AY: 2004-05 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. reported in 336 ITR 136 and decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways(I) Ltd. reported in 331 ITR 236. In view of the submissions of the assessee, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has decided the issue of jurisdiction in reassessment from paras 5.5 to 5.8 of the impugned order. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under: “5.5 In this regard, I have perused all 4 judgements and I find that out of 4 judgments relied upon by the…

Meenum Chandra Mohan, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 229/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Ms. Bhumika Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. N. Makwana, D.R
Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. No. 229/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year:2003-04) Meenum Chandra Mohan, Plot No.96-A, TPS, 3rd Floor, 15th Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400 050 Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 19(3)-3, Mumbai - 400012 Respondent PAN: AADPC1576C अपीलाथ" की ओर से /By Appellant : Ms. Bhumika Vora, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent : Shri G. N. Makwana, D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08.08.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 12.08.2016 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA…

T.N.Sekar, L/H Late T.S.Narasimhan, Salem vs. ITO, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 68/CHNY/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.66 & 68/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2001-02

For Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT
Section 147Section 148

…sessing the deposits made in the bank account and no such addition was made in the reopened assessment, can the Assessing Officer make assessment by including other income? This issue was considered by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Jet Airways Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236. The Bombay High Court, after considering the judgment 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…

T.N.Sekar, Salem vs. ITO, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 67/CHNY/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.66 & 68/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2001-02

For Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT
Section 147Section 148

…sessing the deposits made in the bank account and no such addition was made in the reopened assessment, can the Assessing Officer make assessment by including other income? This issue was considered by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Jet Airways Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236. The Bombay High Court, after considering the judgment 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…

T.N.Sekar, L/H Late S.S.Narasimhan, Salem vs. ITO, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 66/CHNY/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.66 & 68/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2001-02

For Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT
Section 147Section 148

…sessing the deposits made in the bank account and no such addition was made in the reopened assessment, can the Assessing Officer make assessment by including other income? This issue was considered by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Jet Airways Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236. The Bombay High Court, after considering the judgment 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 3(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Everlon Synthetics P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 6965/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6965/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Income Tax Officer 3(1)(4), M/S Everlon Synthetics बनाम/ R. No. 666, Pvt. Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhawan,M.K. Road, 67, Regent Chambers, Mumbai – 400 020. 208 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaace0860H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…te Piles India Ltd. 3. (2012) 252 CTR 78 (Bom. HC), Monitor India (P) Ltd. 4. (2012) 68 DTR 85 (Bom), NYK Line (India) Ltd. 5. (2011)349 ITR 150 (Bom), Direct Information P. Ltd. 6. (2010) 332 ITR 587 (Bom), IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd. 7. (2010) 331 ITR 236 (Bom), Jet Airways India Ltd. 8. (2010)329 ITR 257 (Bom), 3I Infotech Ltd. 9. (2010) 323 ITR 54 (Bom), Rallis India Ltd. 10. (2009) 314 ITR 275 (Bom) Cartini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 11. {2007) 295 ITR 333 (Bom) Siemens Information System Ltd..v. ACIT The assessee company submitted that it had truly and fully disclosed all the materials while fil…

Rukmini V. Chorgode, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 619/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Smt. Rukamini ChorghadeFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54

…as no notice u/s 143(2) was issued and served. 2. In the facts and in the circumstances, the impugned assessment order confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law in view of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Jet Airways Pvt. Ltd., 331 ITR 236, since no addition was made for the ground of reopening.” 6. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. As per additional ground no.1, assessee has challenged the validity of assessment order passed under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act in the absence of issuance of notice under sect…

Travotel (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1551/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J P Boaz & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 50Section 54E

…mption u/s 54EC, against which the revenue has not filed any appeal, the very basis and the reasons for reopening the assessment does not hold ground. Accordingly, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Jet Airways, reported in [2011] 331 ITR 236, wherein it has been held that, once the very ground for entertaining the ‘reason to believe’ for income escaping assessment stands negated or is no longer the subject matter of addition, then other additions also cannot be made and the very formation of reason to believe will not hold ground. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has specifically taken…

Powai Vihar Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(3), Mumbai

ITA 6412/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2016AY 2005-06
For Appellant: M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri S. Pandian-DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई ‘सी मुंबई सी सी’ खंडपीठ सी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“C”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अिमत शु"ल "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amit Shukla,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6412/Mum/2011 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 वष" Powai Vihar Developers Pvt. Ltd. Asstt. CIT-10(3) Shrishti House (1st Floor) Aayakar Bhavan NSB Road, Mulund (W) Vs. M.K. Road Mumbai-400 080. Mumbai-400 020. PAN:AAACP 4163 G (अपीलाथ" /Ap…

ITO 18(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Dr . Vasant J Rath Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2005-06

ITA 844/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainthe Income Tax Officer 18(2)(1), Room No.110, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Parel, Mumbai 400 012 ... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…assessee under the head ‘ capital gains’, as advance rent and proceeded to bring the same to tax under the head ‘income from house property’. 5.4.3 In the cited decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways (I) Ltd. reported in (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom), it has been held that the Assessing Officer has the power to assess other income only if the income referred to in the reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act have been assessed. While interpreting the scope of power of the Assessing Officer in view of the effect of the amendment to Section 147 of the Act w.e.f.…

Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd vs. DCIT, Circle-1

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

ITA 86/DEL/2006[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Assessment Year : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akhelesh Kuamr, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aasish Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148

…proceedings u/s 147. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Chiel Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 549 (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 we test the facts of the instant case on the touchstone of the principle as discussed hereinabove, it turns out that all the four reasons taken note of by the AO before issuing notice u/s 148 are non-existent and, resultantly, there is no question of making any other addition. We, therefore, set aside the assessment order passed by…

DCIT, Circle-1 vs. Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd

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

ITA 442/DEL/2006[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Assessment Year : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akhelesh Kuamr, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aasish Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148

…proceedings u/s 147. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Chiel Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 549 (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 we test the facts of the instant case on the touchstone of the principle as discussed hereinabove, it turns out that all the four reasons taken note of by the AO before issuing notice u/s 148 are non-existent and, resultantly, there is no question of making any other addition. We, therefore, set aside the assessment order passed by…

ITO 8(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Gennex Cresa Partners Consultants P.L Td, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4480/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta Nos. 3853 To 3855/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2008-09 बनाम/ M/S. Gennex Cresa The Ito, Ward 8(1)(4), Partners Consultants Pvt. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ltd., Mumbai-400 020 S-202, Nimbus Centre, Oberoi Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta Nos. 4480 To 4482/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2008-09 बनाम/ The Ito, Ward 8(1)(4), M/S. Gennex Cresa Partners Aayakar Bhavan, Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Mumbai-400 020 S-202, Nimbus Centre, Oberoi Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaccg 6878K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Assessee By: Shri Firoze Andhyarujina ""यथ" क" ओर से/Revenue By: Shri Shrikant Namdeo सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :04.01.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :04 .01.2016 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Firoze AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo
Section 143(1)Section 148

…tions have been made for the reasons for which the assessment was reopened. The Ld. Counsel vehemently stated that this is against the settled proposition of law laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd in 331 ITR 236. 7. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative could not bring any distinguishing decision in favour of the Revenue. 8. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. With the assistance of the Ld. Counsel, we have also considered the relevant documentary evidences brought on record and referred to before u…

Gennex Cresa Partners Consultants P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 8(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3853/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta Nos. 3853 To 3855/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2008-09 बनाम/ M/S. Gennex Cresa The Ito, Ward 8(1)(4), Partners Consultants Pvt. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ltd., Mumbai-400 020 S-202, Nimbus Centre, Oberoi Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta Nos. 4480 To 4482/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2008-09 बनाम/ The Ito, Ward 8(1)(4), M/S. Gennex Cresa Partners Aayakar Bhavan, Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Mumbai-400 020 S-202, Nimbus Centre, Oberoi Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaccg 6878K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Assessee By: Shri Firoze Andhyarujina ""यथ" क" ओर से/Revenue By: Shri Shrikant Namdeo सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :04.01.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :04 .01.2016 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Firoze AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo
Section 143(1)Section 148

…tions have been made for the reasons for which the assessment was reopened. The Ld. Counsel vehemently stated that this is against the settled proposition of law laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd in 331 ITR 236. 7. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative could not bring any distinguishing decision in favour of the Revenue. 8. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. With the assistance of the Ld. Counsel, we have also considered the relevant documentary evidences brought on record and referred to before u…

Salim Khan L/H of Late Amanullah Khan, Roorkee vs. ITO, Roorkee

In the result we quash the reassessment proceedings and allow the appeal of the

ITA 5234/DEL/2010[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148

…esh reasons. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT 336 ITR 136 (Del) and of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. 331 ITR 236 (Bom). Placing reliance on these decisions he submitted that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law and hence liable to be quashed. 5. Ld. DR on the other hand supported the orders of the AO as well as the Ld. CIT (A). 3 20x5 CO No. 413/Del/2010 6. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the documents on record. It is se…

Sri. H.P. Basavaraju, Mysore vs. ITO, Mysore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is allowed

ITA 496/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT (D.R)
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…cancelled and in support of this contention placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Ram Singh (2008) 217 CTR (Raj) 345 and of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways (I) Ltd. reported in 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). 5.2 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the impugned order of the learned CIT (Appeals), contending that the existence of reasons at the time of reopening the assessment was sufficient. He submitted that merely because the addition is deleted by the learned CIT (Appeals) later, on appeal, does not mean that the r…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nandan Auto Tech Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 3166/DEL/2009[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain, Ashish Chadha, AshishFor Respondent: Shri R.L. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…sessing Officer that no addition is being made on this account. In support of the above proposition, the learned AR relied upon the following judgments:- (i) CIT vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 351 ITR 23 (Del) (ii) CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. 331 ITR 236 (Bom) (iii) Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs ACIT W. P. (C) 2594/2013, CM 4918/2013 & CM 15970/2013, Dated.- August 11, 2014 (Delhi High Court) (iv) CIT-II Vs Living Media India Ltd. [2013] 359 ITR 106 (Del) (v) CIT VsCheil Communications India Pvt. Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 549 (Del) (vi) CIT vsAdhunikNiryatIspat Co. 63 DTR 212 (Del) (vii) CIT vs Software…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Mookambika Developers

The appeals stand allowed to the extent as indicated above, and the matter is

ITA/374/2014HC Karnataka27 Jul 2015

Bench: VINEET SARAN,A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 40A(3)

…f the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Majinder Singh Kang Vs CIT (2012) CIT 344 ITR 358 & CIT Vs Mehak Finvest Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 769 as well as the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT – Vs – Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 and several other judgments rendered by the Supreme Court and various High Courts, it was held that :- Considering the provision of Section 147 as well as its Explanation 3, and also keeping in view that Section 147 is for the benefit of the Revenue and not assessee and is aimed at garnering the escaped income of the assessee {viz. Sun Engi…

Sri N Govindaraju vs. The Income Tax Officer

Appeal stands disposed of

ITA/504/2013HC Karnataka01 Jul 2015

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 45(2)

…o the notice of the Assessing Officer subsequently during the course of proceedings under section 147, even though reason for notice for ‘such income’ which may have escaped assessment, may not survive. In the case of CIT Vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 the Bombay High Court has held that “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 h…