CIT v. Ramachandra Hatcheries

305 ITR 117High Court2008#11505 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 143(1)Section 148Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 80iabsection 80absection 10(46)section 10(20)section 80ib(10)section 194ideduction under section 80iasection 80icsection 80acdeduction u/s 80iasection 80asection 80ib

Judgments citing CIT v. Ramachandra Hatcheries

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, NOIDA vs. NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, NOIDA

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

ITA 6732/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 34Section 80ASection 80I

…truly all the material necessary for assessment, which is a condition precedent if case is reopened beyond four year from the end of the relevant assessment year, thus reasons recorded are not valid. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs Ramachandran Hatcheries 305 ITR 117- SC, held that where revenue did not file appeal against the order granting issue. Thus, in view of aforesaid factual and legal discussion, the reopening which was based on direction of PCIT is unjustified, consequently, reassessment order dated 05.12.2017 is set-aside. 8. Even on merit, we find that there are series of decision, wherein it has b…

NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

ITA 6541/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 34Section 80ASection 80I

…truly all the material necessary for assessment, which is a condition precedent if case is reopened beyond four year from the end of the relevant assessment year, thus reasons recorded are not valid. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs Ramachandran Hatcheries 305 ITR 117- SC, held that where revenue did not file appeal against the order granting issue. Thus, in view of aforesaid factual and legal discussion, the reopening which was based on direction of PCIT is unjustified, consequently, reassessment order dated 05.12.2017 is set-aside. 8. Even on merit, we find that there are series of decision, wherein it has b…

NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

ITA 6540/DEL/2018[20101-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 34Section 80ASection 80I

…truly all the material necessary for assessment, which is a condition precedent if case is reopened beyond four year from the end of the relevant assessment year, thus reasons recorded are not valid. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs Ramachandran Hatcheries 305 ITR 117- SC, held that where revenue did not file appeal against the order granting issue. Thus, in view of aforesaid factual and legal discussion, the reopening which was based on direction of PCIT is unjustified, consequently, reassessment order dated 05.12.2017 is set-aside. 8. Even on merit, we find that there are series of decision, wherein it has b…

PAALAR SHOES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1640/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1640/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Paalar Shoes Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 151/4, Mount Poonamalee Road, Income Tax, Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089. Central Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aaecp6556B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 18, Chennai, For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Raised 4 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 36(1)(va)

…s that the said issue is attained finality and reassessment made by the Assessing officer on the same issue is not maintainable. He drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Ramachandra Hatcheries (2008) 305 ITR 117 (Mad) and argued that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to commence reassessment proceedings on the issue, which has already been adjudicated upon by the ld. CIT(A) and the Hon’ble High Court held the Tribunal correctly decided the matter in favour of the assessee. 3 I.T.A. No.1640/Chny/25 4. Further, he drew our attention the decision…

DHANTERASH TRADEWING PVT. LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 166/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.166/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dhanterash Tradewing Pvt. Ltd........................…...........................……….……Appellant No.101, Real Tech Park, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705. [Pan: Aadcd6307R] Vs. Ito, Ward-10(1), Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 27 , 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Against The Order Dated 22.11.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Nfac, Delhi Upholding The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Dated 19.11.2018 By Ignoring The Fact That The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In Respect Of Funds Received By The Assessee Company Was Already Subject Matter Of The Revisionary Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Which Were Dropped By The Pr. Cit After The Assessee Replying The Show-Cause Notice Issued U/S 263 With All Evidences & Documents By Accepting The Assessee’S Contentions. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3,851/- Which Was Processed U/S 143(1)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263

…y same issue was raised by the assessee in the immediately preceding assessment year 1987- 88 before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal "A" Bench, wherein the Tribunal found that the hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Ramachandra Hatcheries [2008] 305 ITR 117, has considered the same legal issue that whether 147 action is permissible in a case where proceedings under section 263 has already been dropped. In the said case, the hon'ble High Court has held that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to reopen an assessment under section 147 so as to circumvent the order of the Commissioner of Income-t…

ITO 9(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S GOAPLA KRISHNA PAPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 536/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…thorities cannot be subject matter of review by the lower authorities. ITAT Bangalore 'A' Bench in the case of Asea Brown Boveri Limited v. Addl. CIT, 2010-TIOL-190-ITAT-BANG, replying on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Ramchandra Hatcheries, 305 ITR 117 observed that the AO has no jurisdiction'to reopen the assessment u/s 147, so as to circumvent the order of the CIT which has become final. As there was no new facts coming to the notice of the AO other than the facts known to the Department while initiating the proceedings u/s 263, the reopening of assessment was not justified on the same facts,…

SMT. NIRMALA GOYAL,AJMER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 920/JPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Apr 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Nikhalesh Kataria (CA)For Respondent: Shri A. K. Mahala (JCIT)
Section 154Section 154(2)Section 154(7)Section 155Section 54F

…the issue of deduction u/s 54F has been decided by the ld. CIT(A) and therefore, there remains no ground for the ld. AO to initiate any sort of rectification proceedings. Further, reliance was placed on the following decision:- • CIT vs. Ramchandra Hatcheries 305 ITR 117 (Chennai) • Rajputana Mining Agencies vs. ITO 118 ITR 1 (Raj HC) • Utkal Galvanizers vs. ACIT 298 ITR 53 (Orissa HC) 4 Smt. Nirmala Goyal, Ajmer Vs. The ACIT, Ajmer • Bhagwandas Associates vs. ITO 119 ITD 1 (Pune ITAT) 8. It was further submitted that the even in the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147, the AO has allowed the deduction t…

ULO SYSTEMS LLC,GURGAON vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 285/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati (CIT DR)
Section 115ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44BSection 44D

…i.e. failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. This was a jurisdictional issue. The notices were not sustainable.” 12. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramachandra Hatcheries 305 ITR 117(Mad) held as under:- “The assessee-firm ran hatcheries and poultry farms. For the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94, the assessments were completed determining the assessee’s total income at Rs. 3,10,280/- and Rs. 4,74,970/- respectively. On appeals by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeals and granted relief unde…

ULO SYSTEMS LLC.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5278/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati (CIT DR)
Section 115ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44BSection 44D

…i.e. failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. This was a jurisdictional issue. The notices were not sustainable.” 12. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramachandra Hatcheries 305 ITR 117(Mad) held as under:- “The assessee-firm ran hatcheries and poultry farms. For the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94, the assessments were completed determining the assessee’s total income at Rs. 3,10,280/- and Rs. 4,74,970/- respectively. On appeals by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeals and granted relief unde…

CIT v. Ramachandra Hatcheries (305 ITR 117) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax