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.

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 236)

Viraj Software Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-26(4), Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1084/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Viraj Software Pvt. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Ward-26(4), 28, Raja Garden, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaccv5229M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…in the famous case of GKN Drive Shaft reported in 259 ITR(SC) 19. The AO gets its power to issue the notice and start the reassessment proceedings from the reasons recorded by him. It is clearly settled by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Jet Airways 331 ITR 236, Delhi High Court, in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories and Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Atlas Cycle 180 ITR that, if no addition is made in the assessment order by the Assessing Officer in respect of the escaped income recorded in the reasons of re-opening and the other additions are made in respect of other escaped income, which ha…

Vijayabai Ramanlal Kotecha, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 1636/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 250

…ion is binding precedent. 3. Ld.AR further submitted that Assessing Officer has not made addition in the assessment order on the grounds on which reopening was done, hence, the addition cannot be sustained. Ld.AR relied on the decision of CIT Vs. Jet Airways 331 ITR 236 (Bom). Ld.AR also filed copy of ITAT Pune’s order in the case of Shre Mahalaxmi Gramin BigarshetiSahakariPatsanstha Vs. ITO in ITA No.1605/PUN/2024 order dated 20.06.2025. Ld.AR filed copies of these orders. ITA No.1636/PUN/2025 [A] Submission of ld.DR : 4. Ld.DR for the Revenue submitted that as per amended provisions of Section 148 which are e…

Shri Rakesh Arora, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-30(8), Delhi

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

ITA 2159/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Sh. Rakesh Arora Ito C-4, 4123 Ward- 30 (8) Vasant Kunj, Vs Delhi Delhi-110070 Pan No.Aaepa727P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Respondent By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025

Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

…n case of assessee." The difference of opinion between the learned Members has arisen in the context of the aforesaid ground. 5. The learned Vice President (Judicial Member) placing reliance on the decision of Bombay High Court in CIT vs Jet Airways (1) Ltd., 331 ITR 236 (Bom) and jurisdictional Delhi High Court decision in ATS Infrastructure Ltd. vs ACIT, 473 ITR 595 (Delhi) has found that once the addition made on account of original reasons recorded (in this case, the addition on account of alleged bogus LTCG is deleted, the other two additions, which were not part of original reasons recorded, cannot be susta…

Arulmigu Vennankud Muniappan Thirukoil, Salem vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1421/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. G. Vardini Karthik

Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 148

…:: 11 :: [unexplained cash deposits of ₹55,27,489/-], on the basis of which the AO reopened the assessment no longer exist in the present case, so the AO lost his power to assess any other income as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways 331 ITR 236 (BOM). In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the AO erred in passing the assessment order by making an addition of the net income of ₹84,59,780/-. Hence, we direct deletion of the addition. 11. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on the 26th day of November, 2025, in Chennai. (जगद…

Ashok Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. Pr, CIT 20, New Delhi

ITA 2641/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2018-19 Ashok Kumar Jain, Vs. Pr. Cit-20, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi. F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Aakpj1872B

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Pooja Swaroop, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148ASection 151Section 263Section 69C

…es 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 (I) 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 cas…

M/S Peak Minerals & Mining Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 32, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6220/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Peak Minerals & Mining Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-32, 116A, Somdutt Chamber-1, Delhi Bhikaji Cama Palace, Rk Puram, New Delhi Pan: Aagcp5126K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ankur Agarwal, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…30th March, 2022 ended up disallowing interest expenditure under section 69C amounting to Rs.79.20 lakhs which has been upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. That being the clinching factual position, I hereby quote CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) that such a reopening wherein the learned Assessing Officer does not make any addition qua this sole reason therein; is not sustainable in law. The same stands quashed in very terms. All other pleadings between the parties on merits stands rendered academic. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th Nove…

Ram Singh Dabas (Through Legal Heir Smt. Rajesh Devi), Delhi vs. ITO Ward 69(5), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4310/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 Ram Singh Dabas, Vs. Income Tax Officer, (Through Legal Heir Smt. Ward-69(5), Rajesh Devi), 1296, Dada New Delhi Shahad Wali Gali, Village Pooth Khurd, Delhi Pan: Acjpd5372R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit(Dr)

Section 147Section 148

…ded up in adding capital gains of Rs.95,00,228/- which has been upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. That being the clinching factual position, we hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratory Vs. CIT (2011) 335 ITR 136 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) that such a reopening wherein the learned Assessing Officer does not make any addition qua the sole reason therein; is not sustainable in law. The same stands quashed in very terms therefore. All other pleadings between the parties on merits stands rendered academic. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court…