(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

M/S Indu Arts, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6611/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2006-07 Indu Arts, Vs. Acit, A-292, Shastri Nagar, Circle 19(1), Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaafi2137E

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(3)

…ly 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 th…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nandan Auto Tech Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 3166/DEL/2009[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain, Ashish Chadha, AshishFor Respondent: Shri R.L. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…. (C) 2594/2013, CM 4918/2013 & CM 15970/2013, Dated.- August 11, 2014 (Delhi High Court) (iv) CIT-II Vs Living Media India Ltd. [2013] 359 ITR 106 (Del) (v) CIT VsCheil Communications India Pvt. Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 549 (Del) (vi) CIT vsAdhunikNiryatIspat Co. 63 DTR 212 (Del) (vii) CIT vs Software Consultants 341 ITR 240 (Del) (viii) CIT vs Narayan Securities P Ltd (Del) ITA no. 40/2009 dt. 3-6- 2011 (ix) ACIT vsMaj Deepak Mehta 344 ITR 641 (Chatis) (x) CIT vsShri Ram Singh 306 ITR 343 (Raj) (xi) Double Dot Finance Ltd vs CIT (Bom) ITA no. 856/2011 (xii) CIT vs ICICI Bank Ltd 349 ITR 482 (Bom) 26. We have heard…

Sri N Govindaraju vs. The Income Tax Officer

Appeal stands disposed of

ITA/504/2013HC Karnataka01 Jul 2015

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 45(2)

…umulative and conjunctive sense”. Following the said judgment of the Bombay High Court, same view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in the cases of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs CIT (2011) CIT 336 ITR 136 and CIT Vs Adhunik Niryat Ispat Ltd. (2011) 63 DTR 212 and also the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Mohmed Juned Dadani (2013) 214 Taxman 38. With due respect to the view taken in the aforesaid cases, we are unable to persuade ourselves to follow the same. Insertion of ‘Explanation’ in a section of an Act is for a different purpose than insertion of a ‘Proviso’. ‘Explanation’ give…