CIT v. Ram KishanLeena

295 ITR 525Reported decision#12610 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80IC

Issues it is cited on

full and true disclosurefirst proviso to section 147beyond four yearssection 80icsection 80isundry creditorsspeaking ordersection 142section 139section 80section 143(1)section 143(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Ram KishanLeena

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 45/DDN/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…egra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case Kamdhenu Enterprises Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO reported in 146 taxmann.com 417 (Delhi) and decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High court in the case of CIT Vs. Ram KishanLeena reported in 295 ITR 525. In both these cases, it was held that during the subsistence of reassessment proceeding, another reassessment notice could not be issued for the same assessment year and thus, second notice is required to be quashed. Hence, the denial of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act which was subject matter of reasons recorded in the second 148 notice cannot su…

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 44/DDN/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…egra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case Kamdhenu Enterprises Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO reported in 146 taxmann.com 417 (Delhi) and decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High court in the case of CIT Vs. Ram KishanLeena reported in 295 ITR 525. In both these cases, it was held that during the subsistence of reassessment proceeding, another reassessment notice could not be issued for the same assessment year and thus, second notice is required to be quashed. Hence, the denial of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act which was subject matter of reasons recorded in the second 148 notice cannot su…

M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS,MEERUT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE , DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 41/DDN/2022[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Sept 2025AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…egra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case Kamdhenu Enterprises Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO reported in 146 taxmann.com 417 (Delhi) and decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High court in the case of CIT Vs. Ram KishanLeena reported in 295 ITR 525. In both these cases, it was held that during the subsistence of reassessment proceeding, another reassessment notice could not be issued for the same assessment year and thus, second notice is required to be quashed. Hence, the denial of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act which was subject matter of reasons recorded in the second 148 notice cannot su…

M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS,MEERUT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 40/DDN/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…egra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case Kamdhenu Enterprises Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO reported in 146 taxmann.com 417 (Delhi) and decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High court in the case of CIT Vs. Ram KishanLeena reported in 295 ITR 525. In both these cases, it was held that during the subsistence of reassessment proceeding, another reassessment notice could not be issued for the same assessment year and thus, second notice is required to be quashed. Hence, the denial of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act which was subject matter of reasons recorded in the second 148 notice cannot su…

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 43/DDN/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Sharda Exports, Vs. Ito, C/O. Sh. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Ward-1(3)(3), 219, Railway Road, Meerut Haridawar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aayfs1694N Dcit, Vs. M/S. Sharda Exports, Central Circle, C/O. Sh. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Dehradun 219, Railway Road, Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aayfs1694N

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amar Singh Rana, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 80Section 80I

…gra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case Kamdhenu Enterprises Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO reported in 146 taxmann.com 417 (Delhi) and decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High court in the case of CIT Vs. Ram Kishan Leena reported in 295 ITR 525. In both these cases, it was held that during the subsistence of reassessment proceeding, another reassessment notice could not be issued for the same assessment year and thus, second notice is required to be quashed. Hence, the denial of ITA No.43/DDN/2022 M/s. Sharda Exports deduction u/s 80IC of the Act which was subject matter of reasons rec…

M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS,MEERUT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(3), HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 39/DDN/2022[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Sharda Exports, Vs. Ito, C/O. Sh. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Ward-1(3)(3), 219, Railway Road, Meerut Haridawar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aayfs1694N Dcit, Vs. M/S. Sharda Exports, Central Circle, C/O. Sh. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Dehradun 219, Railway Road, Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aayfs1694N

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amar Singh Rana, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 80Section 80I

…gra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case Kamdhenu Enterprises Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO reported in 146 taxmann.com 417 (Delhi) and decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High court in the case of CIT Vs. Ram Kishan Leena reported in 295 ITR 525. In both these cases, it was held that during the subsistence of reassessment proceeding, another reassessment notice could not be issued for the same assessment year and thus, second notice is required to be quashed. Hence, the denial of ITA No.43/DDN/2022 M/s. Sharda Exports deduction u/s 80IC of the Act which was subject matter of reasons rec…

SHRI.SURESH SOLANKI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

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

ITA 380/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R., CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…a second notice u/s. 148 on 02.03.2015 which is not sustainable in law being barred by limitation of four years provided under proviso to section 147. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT Vs Ram Kishan Leela [2007] (295 ITR 525) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Madras Page 5 of 8 High Court in case of ASSP & Co Vs CIT[1988] (172 ITR 274) and submitted that the reassessment proceedings and reassessment order is bad in law as the notice u/s. 148 was issued twice and the reassessment proceedings consequent to first notice u/s. 148 was pending when second notice u/s. 148…

ACIT, ALWAR vs. M/S PRIME CHEM OIL LTD.,, ALWAR

ITA 9/JPR/2012[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2017AY 1999-00
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Prithaviraj Meena(Addl. CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…names are given to the AO, then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessment in accordance with law, but it cannot regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee company. The ld. AO also referred the case on CIT Vs. Ram Kishan Leela 295 ITR 525 (2006) (Raj.) and argued that once the reassessment are pending, the entire assessment is open and is not confined to the scope of reasons recorded by the AO before assuming the jurisdiction. Whereas the ld. AR for the appellant relied upon CIT Vs. Sri Ram Singh ACIT Vs M/s Prime Chem Oil Ltd., Alwar 306 ITR 343 (2008) (Raj.). The AOs case laws…

CIT v. Ram KishanLeena (295 ITR 525) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax