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.

M/S. Biobuild Developers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 4011/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sameer DalalFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…d facts in confirming the addition of INR.33,82,946/- on account of notional interest income, even though no addition was made on the basis of the original reason recorded for reopening u/s.148. In view of binding judicial precedents [e.g. CIT V. Jet Airways (331 ITR 236), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. V. CIT (336 ITR 136)[ such reassessment is invalid. 2. Estimation without Evidence – Addition on Presumption : The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on presumption without any corroborative material, books of account entries, or supporting documentation. No actual interest income accrued or has claimed b…

Lioyd'S Register of Shipping (Now Known As Lioyd 'S Register Group Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1457/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Lloyd’S Register Of Shipping Dy. Cit (It)-3(1)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building, (Now Known As Lloyd’S Register Group Ltd.) Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 17Th Floor, Unit No. 1702, 1703 & Vs. 1704, Building Q2, Aurum Q Parc, Gen 4/1, Ttc, Thane Belapur Road, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai-400 710

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 234CSection 40

…addition was made by the Assessing Officer on the ground of reopening? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal correctly interpret the decision reported in the case of Jet Airways (I) Limited reported 331 ITR 236 (Bom) and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. reported in 336 ITR 136 (Del) on facts in the instant case?” 15. The Calcutta High Court, inter alia, relying upon the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (supra) and that of Delhi High Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra) had found that the Tribunal was justified in finding…

Sunanda Constructions, Pune vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Pune

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

ITA 784/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva, Addl.CIT
Section 132

…wrong claim made by the assessee of interest expenses. However, no such addition was made on this count and the disallowance was u/s 40(a)(ia), therefore, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom), the addition made by the Assessing Officer has to be deleted and the re-assessment proceedings be quashed. It was further contended that since the interest expenditure has been capitalized through closing stock, therefore, in absence of claim of expenses, disallowance is unwarranted, even if no tax was deducted u/s 194A. It was also conten…

Sunand Constructions, Pune vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(2), Pune

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

ITA 783/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva, Addl.CIT
Section 132

…wrong claim made by the assessee of interest expenses. However, no such addition was made on this count and the disallowance was u/s 40(a)(ia), therefore, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom), the addition made by the Assessing Officer has to be deleted and the re-assessment proceedings be quashed. It was further contended that since the interest expenditure has been capitalized through closing stock, therefore, in absence of claim of expenses, disallowance is unwarranted, even if no tax was deducted u/s 194A. It was also conten…

Shivam Readymix Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 166/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 69C

…cts and law and therefore re-assessment proceedings initiated are bad in law and void are initio. In this regard, reliance is placed on: Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-5, Mumbai v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., reported in (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.), have made an in depth interpretation of the language used in the main provision of section 147(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and newly inserted Explanation-3 to this section w.e.f. 01/04/1989 with a view to make the same in line with the legislative intent. The Bombay High Court held that, if after issuing a notice under section 148, the…

Mahesh Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-68(6), 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/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

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…

Nikhil Rashiklal Vora, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 34(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3628/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nikhil Rashiklal Vora, Ito Ward 34(2)(2), Flat No. 6, Amit Parnar Ist Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Floor, 205-A, Dixit Road, Vile Complex, Bandra (E), Parle (E), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aaopv 0747 R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Devendra Jain
Section 148

…ons recorded for reopening and therefore the Nikhil RAshiklal Vora addition is bad in law as held in the case of CIT v. Jet Airways is bad in law as held in the case of CIT v. Jet Airways is bad in law as held in the case of CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom)(HC). (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom)(HC). 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Addl.JCIT (Appeals) Ld. Addl.JCIT (Appeals)-2, Chennai has erred in confirming the 2, Chennai has erred in c…

Shri Salasar Balaji Developers Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, relevant grounds mentioned above are also allowed in toto

ITA 1188/JPR/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarshri Salasar Balaji Developers Private Limited, A-13-14, Shyam Nagar, Benar Road, Nadi Ka Phatak, Jhotwara, Jaipur 302012 Pan No. Aaics 7960C ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, C.A., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…upreme Court and Jurisdictional High Court - PCIT vs. Lark Chemicals (P) Ltd. (2018) 259 Taxman 365 (SC) Anand Cine Services (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT & Ors. (2024) 243 DTR 485 (Mad.) CIT vs. Sh. Ram Singh (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) In the present case no addition is made w.r.t. M/s. Babylon Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Alves Securities Pvt. Ltd. whose name are mentioned in the reasons and therefore addition made w.r.t. 38 other companies is not sustainable. (b) We further note that the reasons state that the assessee is in receipt of Rs. 14,19,53,079/- t…

DCIT Central Circle-2, Delhi vs. Apple Commodities Ltd., Gautam Budh Nagar

ITA 1405/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…the reasons recorded in the notice under section 148(2) on the basis of which he had initiated proceedings under section 147. Similar question came for consideration before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Jet Airways (1) Limited, (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom). The court held as under (page 242): “The effect of section 147 as it now stands after the amendment of 2009 can, therefore, be summarized as follows: (i) the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year; (ii) upon the formation of that belief and before he…

Mandeep Singh Oberoi, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1) Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2843/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Mandeep Singh Oberoi, C/O- Ca Vaibhav Goel, Circle-2(1)(1), 75 Navyug Market, Ghaziabad 1St Floor, Ghaziabad Pan: Aagpo4208A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Vaibhav Goel, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 148

…f loss on house property of Rs.1.5 lakhs, which has been confirmed in the lower appellate discussion. 3. The above being the clinching factual position, I hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratory Vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to conclude that the impugned reopening itself is not sustainable once the learned lower authorities have not made any addition qua the above sole reason. The same stands quashed in very terms. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd July, 2025 (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 22nd July…

Naresh Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. Commssioner of Income Tax Appeal, Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3122/DEL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 3122/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Naresh Kumar, Vs Cit(A), 7/58, Chiranjiv Vihar, C.G.O. Complex, Hapur Ghaziabad-201002 Chungi, Ghaziabad-201001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Anspk2600H Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1075703183(1) Dated 21.04.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, 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. 3122/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Naresh Kumar, Vs CIT(A), 7/58, Chiranjiv Vihar, C.G.O. Complex, Hapur Ghaziabad-201002 Chungi, Ghaziabad-201001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ANSPK2600H Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 21.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1075703183(1) dated 21.04.2025, in proceedin…

Vivek Naresh Shah L/H of Deceased Naresh Umedlal Shah, Sangli vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 & 2, Sangli

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 941/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Deshpande and Shri Mandar S. KhireFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 143(3)Section 159Section 2(11)Section 2(29)Section 250(6)Section 253(1)(a)Section 254(1)Section 68

…f Hon’ble Judicial Member held that once the re- assessment proceedings are held to be not in accordance with law and are liable to be quashed in view of decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in light of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. reported in (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) and since the legal heirs 5 Vivek Naresh Shah had participated in the appeal proceedings, there is no need to bring the legal representatives on record in terms of section 159 r.w.s.2(29) of the Act r.w.s.2(11) of CPC issue notice on the legal representatives of the deceased assessee. In consequence of the same and in view of the majorit…

Sundeep Garg, Palwal vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Faridabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2010/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2010/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sundeep Garg, Vs Income Tax Officer, H.No. D-28, Ward No. 28, Near Old Ward-2(4), Ananj Mandi, Inderpuri Mohalla, Faridabad, Palwal, Haryana-121102 Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abcpg7873N Assessee By: Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. & Sh. Sanjay Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1072941414(1) Dated 05.02.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 2010/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sundeep Garg, Vs Income Tax Officer, H.No. D-28, Ward No. 28, Near Old Ward-2(4), Ananj Mandi, Inderpuri MOhalla, Faridabad, Palwal, Haryana-121102 Haryana-122001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABCPG7873N Assessee by: Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. & Sh. Sanjay Goel, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 10.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 10.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFA…

Audhyanik Utpadak Avasmvipran Shakari Samiti Limited, Budaun vs. ITO, Budaun

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1019/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Audhyanik Utpadak Avam Vipran Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Budaun, Village-Dalalnagar, Post Uttar Pradesh Miyaoo Tehsil, Dataganj, Dist.- Budaun, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aadaa0338B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Gyanendra Singh Shakya (In Person) Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 147Section 148

…posits of Rs.1,04,22,000/- whereas he ended up to re-estimate the turnover in question @ 8%; respectively. 3. This being the clinching factual position, I hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratory Vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to conclude that such a reopening itself is not sustainable in law once the learned Assessing Officer had not made any addition qua the above sole reason. Ordered accordingly. 3. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd July, 2025 (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 2nd July, 202…

Harsh Comtrade Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 225/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.225/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Harsh Comtrade Private Limited, Vs Ito, Ward-5(4), Kolkata 1/A, Stuti Apartment, Near Ashok Panhouse, City Light, Surat, Gujarat Pan No. :Aabcg 8847 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 28.12.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059161646(1) For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. Shri Mehul Shah, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Submitted That He Has Filed Written Submissions Before The Tribunal Which Has Been Placed In The Paper Book At Pages 90 To 104 Which Reads As Follows :- Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata - 'Smc' Bench In The Case Of Harsh Comtrade Pvt. Ltd Sub: Written Submission For A.Y. 2012-13 Ref: Assessee'S Appeal No. 225/Kol/2024 Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2024 May It Please To Your Honour 1. In This Case, The Case Is Re-Opened On The Basis Of Reasons For Reopening Recorded On 23.03.2018. The Same Is Reproduced

For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. CIT-Sr.DR
Section 148

…ee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Atlas Cycle Industries, reported in [1989] 180 ITR 319 (P&H) as also the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways (I) Limited, reported in (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom), wherein it has been held that where the AO does not assess or, as the case may be, reassess the income which he has reason to believe had escaped assessment and which formed the basis of a notice 19 u/s.148 of the Act, it is open to the AO to assess or reassess independently any other income which does not form the subject matter of the n…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Filatex India Limited, Delhi

ITA 5000/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

…any other addition. For this, he placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs CIT [2011] reported in 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) and in the case of CIT-II vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd. reported in [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). Ld. AR thus requested that the re-assessment order making additions of INR 100,11,32,484/- on the issues which are not the subject matter of reopening and without making additions on the issue for which reasons for reopening the assessment were recorded, is without jurisdiction and, therefore, the reassessment order deserves to be quashed…

Marvelous Cement Private Limited, New Delhi vs. National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4100/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…any other addition. For this, he placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs CIT [2011] reported in 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) and in the case of CIT-II vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd. reported in [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). Ld. AR thus requested that the re- assessment order making additions of INR 2,58,87,207/- on the issues which are not the subject matter of reopening and without making additions on the issue for which reasons for reopening the assessment were recorded, is without jurisdiction and, therefore, the reassessment order deserves to be quashed.…

Marvelous Cement Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 16(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4099/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Marvellous Cement Pvt.Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Flat No.305, 3Rd Floor, Ward-16(4), Bakshi House, 40-41 Nehru New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaecm9931F Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Marvellous Cement Pvt.Ltd., Vs National E-Assessment Flat No.305, 3Rd Floor, Centre, New Delhi Bakshi House, 40-41 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaecm9931F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca & Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders, Both Dated 22.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi- 6/10624/2019-20 & Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10022053 Respectively, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”]. Both The Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders, Dated 24.12.2019 U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act & Dt. 15.09.2020

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…any other addition. For this, he placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs CIT [2011] reported in 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) and in the case of CIT-II vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd. reported in [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). Ld. AR thus requested that the re- assessment order making additions of INR 2,58,87,207/- on the issues which are not the subject matter of reopening and without making additions on the issue for which reasons for reopening the ITA No.4099 & 4100/Del/2024 assessment were recorded, is without jurisdiction and, therefore, the reassessment…

Income Tax Officer Ward-12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Devraj Multitrade Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed for AYs 2014-15,

ITA 3550/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3513/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3512/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3511/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3550/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 144Section 250Section 68

…funds. However, AO is not justified in making the addition on separate issue when there is no addition made on the core issue on which case was reopened. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Jet Airways (1) Ltd, 331 ITR 236 wherein is has been held "Whether, however, if after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holds that income, for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some other income; i…

Income Tax Officer - Ward-12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Devraj Multitrade Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed for AYs 2014-15,

ITA 3513/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3513/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3512/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3511/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3550/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 144Section 250Section 68

…funds. However, AO is not justified in making the addition on separate issue when there is no addition made on the core issue on which case was reopened. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Jet Airways (1) Ltd, 331 ITR 236 wherein is has been held "Whether, however, if after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holds that income, for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some other income; i…