(i) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT

63 DTR 212High Court2011#2728 most cited

What is (i) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

If the grounds for reopening an assessment are not sustainable, the assessment proceedings must be dropped, and additions cannot be made on a different basis in the reopened assessment.

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Adhunik Niryatlspat Ltd · 63 DTR 212 · reopening assessment · unsustainable reopening · drop assessment proceedings · additions on different ground · reassessment procedure

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 148ASection 14ASection 153ASection 234BSection 234D

Issues it is cited on

section 31(3)section 205section 9(1)(ii)section 32(1)(iia)clarificatory amendmentsection 148(2)section 211section 140section 234dadditional depreciationsection 52section 115ja

Judgments citing (i) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru, Bangalore vs. Coffee Day Enterprises, Bengaluru

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

ITA 782/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S, Praveena, D.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

…the issue of reopening is not sustainable, the proceedings will have to be dropped and additions cannot be made on a different ground in a reopened assessment. i Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd V. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) ii CIT V. Adhunik Niryatlspat Ltd (2011) 63 DTR 212 (Del) iii Martech Peripherals (P) Ltd V. DCIT (2017) 81 Taxmann.com 73 (Madras)/(2017) 394 ITR 733 (Madras) iv CIT V. Jet Airways (l) Ltd (2010) 331 ITR 336 (Born) v CIT V. Takshila Educational Society (2016) 131 DTR 332 (Pat) vi CIT V. Double Dot Finance Ltd (2013) 214 Taxman 47 (Mag)(Bom) & Rahul Prakash V. ITO (2013) 217 Taxman 100 (All) ITA N…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Enterprises Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 781/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Sri C. Ramesh, A.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

…the issue of reopening is not sustainable, the proceedings will have to be dropped and additions cannot be made on a different ground in a reopened assessment. i Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd V. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) ii CIT V. Adhunik Niryatlspat Ltd (2011) 63 DTR 212 (Del) iii Martech Peripherals (P) Ltd V. DCIT (2017) 81 Taxmann.com 73 (Madras)/(2017) 394 ITR 733 (Madras) iv CIT V. Jet Airways (l) Ltd (2010) 331 ITR 336 (Born) vCIT V. Takshila Educational Society (2016) 131 DTR 332 (Pat) vi CIT V. Double Dot Finance Ltd (2013) 214 Taxman 47 (Mag)(Bom) & Rahul Prakash V. ITO (2013) 217 Taxman 100 (All) vii CIT…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Enterprises Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 780/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Sri C. Ramesh, A.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

…the issue of reopening is not sustainable, the proceedings will have to be dropped and additions cannot be made on a different ground in a reopened assessment. i Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd V. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) ii CIT V. Adhunik Niryatlspat Ltd (2011) 63 DTR 212 (Del) iii Martech Peripherals (P) Ltd V. DCIT (2017) 81 Taxmann.com 73 (Madras)/(2017) 394 ITR 733 (Madras) iv CIT V. Jet Airways (l) Ltd (2010) 331 ITR 336 (Born) vCIT V. Takshila Educational Society (2016) 131 DTR 332 (Pat) vi CIT V. Double Dot Finance Ltd (2013) 214 Taxman 47 (Mag)(Bom) & Rahul Prakash V. ITO (2013) 217 Taxman 100 (All) Page 11…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Empee Distilleries Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1380/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1380/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Vs M/S. Empee Distilleries Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ‘Empee Tower, Corporate Circle-2(1) 59, Harris Road, Pudupet, Chennai-600 034 Chennai-600 002. Pan : Aaace-1687-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. Suresh Guduri, Jcit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. A.R.Karthick Lakshmanan, Advocate सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2024 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Mr. Suresh Guduri, JCITFor Respondent: Mr. A.R.Karthick
Section 147

…) has relied upon the following case laws laid down by various High Courts:- 1. Jet Airways India Ltd .- 331 ITR 236 (Bom) 2. Ranbaxi Laboratories Ltd. - 336 ITR 136 (Del) 3. Major Deepak Mehta – 344 ITR 641 (Chatisgarh HC) 4. Adhunik Niryat Ispat Ltd – 63 DTR 212 (Del) 5. During the course of hearing, Ld. DR fairly accepted the fact that addition has not been made on this issue on which the case was re-opened. The Ld. DR however argued that as per Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act the Assessing Officer has got power to assess/reassess income in respect of any issue in reopened of assessment. The L…

Shatrunjay Parks and Resorts P Ltd., Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Central, Kolhapur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 441/PUN/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari
Section 144Section 147Section 192

…ally deleted in an appeal. In such a scenario, the `other addition’ made by the Assessing Officer would automatically cease to stand in isolation. This view has been affirmed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Adhunik Niryat Ispat Ltd. (2011) 63 DTR 212 (Del). In that case, the return filed by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1999-2000 declaring income @ Rs. 1,22,460 was processed under s. 143(1) of the IT Act. However, notice was issued under section 148 of the Act subsequently, on the information received from the Director of IT (Inv.), New Delhi, to the effect that the assessee had accepted the…

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4973/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…s attained finality, whereas in the case in hand, though the addition was deleted in the earlier A.Y, but that very deletion is under challenge. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee in the case of Adhunik Niryat Ispat Ltd 63 DTR 212 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is distinguishable. 12. We do not find any force in the contention of the ld. DR. Additions have been deleted and the Revenue has not filed any appeal. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the deletion has attained finality and, therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case…

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4972/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…s attained finality, whereas in the case in hand, though the addition was deleted in the earlier A.Y, but that very deletion is under challenge. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee in the case of Adhunik Niryat Ispat Ltd 63 DTR 212 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is distinguishable. 12. We do not find any force in the contention of the ld. DR. Additions have been deleted and the Revenue has not filed any appeal. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the deletion has attained finality and, therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case…

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4971/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…s attained finality, whereas in the case in hand, though the addition was deleted in the earlier A.Y, but that very deletion is under challenge. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee in the case of Adhunik Niryat Ispat Ltd 63 DTR 212 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is distinguishable. 12. We do not find any force in the contention of the ld. DR. Additions have been deleted and the Revenue has not filed any appeal. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the deletion has attained finality and, therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case…

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4970/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…s attained finality, whereas in the case in hand, though the addition was deleted in the earlier A.Y, but that very deletion is under challenge. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee in the case of Adhunik Niryat Ispat Ltd 63 DTR 212 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is distinguishable. 12. We do not find any force in the contention of the ld. DR. Additions have been deleted and the Revenue has not filed any appeal. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the deletion has attained finality and, therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case…

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4969/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…s attained finality, whereas in the case in hand, though the addition was deleted in the earlier A.Y, but that very deletion is under challenge. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee in the case of Adhunik Niryat Ispat Ltd 63 DTR 212 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is distinguishable. 12. We do not find any force in the contention of the ld. DR. Additions have been deleted and the Revenue has not filed any appeal. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the deletion has attained finality and, therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case…

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4968/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…s attained finality, whereas in the case in hand, though the addition was deleted in the earlier A.Y, but that very deletion is under challenge. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee in the case of Adhunik Niryat Ispat Ltd 63 DTR 212 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is distinguishable. 12. We do not find any force in the contention of the ld. DR. Additions have been deleted and the Revenue has not filed any appeal. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the deletion has attained finality and, therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case…

Sampat Lal Lodha, Nathdwara vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rajsamand

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2/JODH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2011-12
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

…(Raj HC) Hotel Regal International & Anr. Vs. ITO (2010) 320 ITR 573 (CAL), CIT v/s Jet Airways (I) Limited (2011) 52 DTR 71/331 ITR 236 (Mum HC) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v/s CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136/57 DTR 281 (Del HC) CIT v/s Adhunik Niryat Ispat Ltd. (2011) 63 DTR 212 (DeI HC) ACIT v/s Major Deepak Mehta (2012) 344 ITR 641 (Chhattisgarh HC). CIT v/s Mohmed Juned Dadani (2013) 355 ITR 172 (Guj HC) The Hon’ble Tribunal held as under:- “Therefore, the very basis and the supporting point, the reasons to believe does not exist anymore, therefore, the proceedings initiated U/s 147/148 deserves to be quashed at this…

Sampat Lal Lodha, Nathdwara vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rajsamand

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1/JODH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2010-11
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

…(Raj HC) Hotel Regal International & Anr. Vs. ITO (2010) 320 ITR 573 (CAL), CIT v/s Jet Airways (I) Limited (2011) 52 DTR 71/331 ITR 236 (Mum HC) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v/s CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136/57 DTR 281 (Del HC) CIT v/s Adhunik Niryat Ispat Ltd. (2011) 63 DTR 212 (DeI HC) ACIT v/s Major Deepak Mehta (2012) 344 ITR 641 (Chhattisgarh HC). CIT v/s Mohmed Juned Dadani (2013) 355 ITR 172 (Guj HC) The Hon’ble Tribunal held as under:- “Therefore, the very basis and the supporting point, the reasons to believe does not exist anymore, therefore, the proceedings initiated U/s 147/148 deserves to be quashed at this…

Meenakshi Dhanaji Patil, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2 (2), Kolhapur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1600/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 192

…ally deleted in an appeal. In such a scenario, the `other addition’ made by the Assessing Officer would automatically cease to stand in isolation. This view has been affirmed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Adhunik Niryat Ispat Ltd. (2011) 63 DTR 212 (Del). In that case, the return filed by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1999-2000 declaring income @ Rs. 1,22,460 was processed under s. 143(1) of the IT Act. However, notice was issued under section 148 of the Act subsequently, on the information received from the Director of IT (Inv.), New Delhi, to the effect that the assessee had accepted the…

M/S. Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1388/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1388/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 Cuke M/S Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, D.C.I.T., 2Nd Floor, Somani Building, S.C. Link Vs. Circle-3, Road, Loha Mandi, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadfb 2375 A Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Mahendra Gargieya & Shri Dewang Gargieya (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69

…. 147(1) as they stood after the amendment of 1st April, 1989 continue to hold the field.” 5.4 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v/s CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136/57 DTR 281 (Del HC) 5.5 The other decisions taking the same view are CIT v/s Adhunik Niryat Ispat Ltd. (2011) 63 DTR 212 (DeI HC) and ACIT v/s Major Deepak Mehta (2012) 65 DTR 237/ 344 ITR 641 (Chhattisgarh HC). 5.6 CIT v/s Mohmed Juned Dadani (2013) 85 DTR 12/355 ITR 172 (Guj HC) (DPB 58-70) “ Headnote: Reopening of Assessment - Jurisdiction of AO - Reasons for reopening - Notice was issued u/s 148 on grounds of wrong computation by assessee u/s 80HHC - Subsequen…

Shri Pappu Qureshi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-5, Jaipur

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

ITA 314/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.C. Jain (C.A.)For Respondent: Miss Chanchal Meena (JCIT)
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…the following decisions:- • CIT v/s Shri Ram Singh (2008) 306 ITR 343. • Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd v/s Commissioner of Income Tax (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) • CIT v/s Jet Airways India Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) • CIT v/s Adhunik Niryat Ispat Limited (2011) 63 DTR 212 (Del) 11. It was accordingly submitted that under the circumstances, the entire proceedings taken by the Assessing Officer resorting to make addition by 6 Pappu Qureshi vs. ITO applying the N.P. Rate of 5% is totally unjustified, unwarranted and against the provision of law as well as beyond the scope of section 148 for which the assessment was r…

Krishna Print Pack, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Meerut

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

ITA 5135/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2009-10 Krishna Print Pack, Vs. Ito, 172, Anup Nagar, Fazalpur, Ward-1(3), Rhotak Road, Meerut. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Aagfk2165A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri C.S. Anand, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2019 Order

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 147oSection 148Section 40A(3)

…e above proposition, he relied on the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. Ram Singh, 306 ITR 343 (Raj); (ii) CIT vs. Jet Airways (P) Ltd., 331 ITR 236 (Bom); (iii) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT, 336 ITR 136 (Del); and (iv) CIT vs. Adhunik Niryat Ispat Ltd., 63 DTR 212 (Del). 8. He accordingly submitted that both legally and factually the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable. 9. The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). 10. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the authorities below. I…

DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Dotex Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objections are also dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1602/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…finally deleted in an appeal. In such a scenario, the 'other addition' made by the Assessing Officer would automatically cease to stand in isolation. This view has been affirmed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. AdhunikNiryatIspat Ltd. [2011] 63 DTR 212 (Delhi). In that case, the return filed by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1999-2000 declaring income @ Rs. 1,22,460 was processed under s. 143(1) of the IT Act. However, notice was issued under section 148 of the Act subsequently, on the information received from the Director of IT (Inv.), New Delhi, to the effect that the assessee had accepted th…

Subrata Saha, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 41(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2395/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Subrata Saha….…………….........…..…….……………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant C/O. D.J. Shah & Co Kalyan Bhawan 2 Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Avqps 9056 F] Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(2), Kolkata……………………………….…….…...…………….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Satyajit Mondal, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 28Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 25Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 143(1)Section 144(1)Section 147Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Subrata Saha….…………….........…..…….……………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant C/o. D.J. Shah & Co Kalyan Bhawan 2 Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [PAN : AVQPS 9056 F] Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(2), Kolkata……………………………….…….…...…………….......Respondent Appearances by: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Satyajit Mondal, Addl. CIT, D/R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : June 28th, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : Ju…

Pragati Finsec Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward -20(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 634/DEL/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalita No. 634/Del./2018 Assessment Year : 2002-03

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. B.R.Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT ITA No. 634/Del./2018 Assessment Year : 2002-03 M/s. Pragati Finsec Ltd. Vs ITO, 204, Triveni Plaza, 17A/56 Ward 20(1), Karol Bagh, Old Ward – 14(3) New Delhi- 110008 New Delhi PAN : AAACP4524B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Mayank Jain, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. B.R.Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing :19.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 20.06.2018 ORDER Per R.S.Syal, Vice President : This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 11.12.2017 in relation to the assessm…