How many judgments cite Majinder Singh Kang v. CIT?

83 judgments on BharatTax cite Majinder Singh Kang v. CIT (344 ITR 358), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Majinder Singh Kang v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 68, Section 133A, Section 142(1).

Majinder Singh Kang v. CIT

344 ITR 358High Court2012#1382 most cited

What is Majinder Singh Kang v. CIT authority for?

Under Explanation 3 to Section 147, the Assessing Officer can make additions on issues other than those for which reassessment was originally initiated, even if the original reason for reopening does not survive or no addition is made on that issue, provided such other issues independently warrant scrutiny.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Majinder Singh Kang v. CIT · Section 147 · Section 148 · scope of reassessment · Explanation 3 to Section 147 · additions on new issues · original reasons for reopening · issue not in reasons · other issues during reassessment · validity of reassessment proceedings

Also reported as

25 Taxmann.com 124

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 143(3)Section 148 Section 68 Section 133A Section 142(1)Section 151 Section 131

Issues it is cited on

section 13(1)(c)(ii)section 54e section 148(2)section 32(1)(iia)section 115bbc clarificatory amendment section 164(2)anonymous donation section 140 kelvinator fresh tangible material section 234d

Judgments citing Majinder Singh Kang v. CIT

JAIN ENTERPRISES, BHILAI,DURG vs. PCIT, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as above

ITA 187/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 187/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jain Enterprises, Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 87-B, Light Industrial Area, Raipur-1, Central Revenue Building, Bhilai-490026, C.G. Civil Lines, Raipur, 492001, C.G. Pan: Aagfj3469G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri S. R. Rao, Advocate राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 11/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2018-19 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.03.2025 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (‘Pcit’) Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधरी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अवधेश कुमार िम", लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No: 187/RPR/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jain Enterprises, vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, 87-B, Light Industrial Area, Raipur-1, Central Revenue Building, Bhilai-490026, C.G. Civil Lines, Raipur, 492001, C.G. PAN: AAGFJ3469G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri S. R. Rao, Advocate राज" की ओ…

DHARAM CHAND AGARWAL,KANPUR (UTTAR PARDESH) vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR- I

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 358/LKW/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Dharam Chand Agarwal, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 14/75 D Gopal Vihar Civil Lines, Kanpur-I, U.P. Kanpur, U.P. Pan: Aanpa1942L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Pr. Cit, Kanpur-1 On 31.03.2024 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Pcit Has Set Aside The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao On 28.03.2022 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B For The A.Y. 2016-17 & Directing Him To Pass A Fresh Assessment Order. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Dated 28.03.2022, Which Has Been Set Aside U/S 263 Of The Act By The Impugned Order Passed By Pr. Cit, Itself Was Illegal & Was Not Enforceable Due To Various Infirmities In The Initiation & Conclusion Of Re-Assessment Proceedings, The Same Could Not Have Been Subjected To Revision U/S 263 Of The Act & Consequently The Impugned Order Is Bad In Law & Wholly Without Jurisdiction. Without Prejudice To The Aforesaid 2. Because The Pr. Cit Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That The Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer, Nfac U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Is Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & In Setting Aside The Same By Exercising His Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 263

…the judgment of the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the aforesaid case does not represent the settled 6 Dharam Chand Agarwal A.Y. 2016-17 law on the said subject. Contrary view has been taken by several Courts in the cases of Majinder Singh Kang vs. CIT (2012) 344 ITR 358, CIT vs. Mehak Finvest (P.) Ltd., (2014) 52 taxman.com51; Balbir Chand Maini vs. CIT (2011) 12 taxman.com 276 (Pun. & Har.) and N. Govinda Raju vs. ITO (2015) 60 taxman.com 333. Furthermore, in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Jakhotia Plastics (P.) Ltd. (2018) 94 taxman.com 89, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the interpretation of the expression,…

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1126/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde &

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

…989, thus enables the Assessing Officer to assess, reassess or recompute any source of income other than that referred to in the recorded reasons. This position has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Manjinder Singh Kang v. CIT [2012] 344 ITR 358 (P&H), wherein it was held that reassessment proceedings can validly cover additional issues even if the original reason for reopening does not survive. The same principle was reiterated in CIT v. MehakFinvest (P) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 769 (P&H), where the Hon'ble Court held that even if no addition is made on the issue forming the basis of reopeni…

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1125/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

…thus\nenables the Assessing Officer to assess, reassess or recompute any\nsource of income other than that referred to in the recorded\nreasons. This position has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana\nHigh Court in Manjinder Singh Kang v. CIT [2012] 344 ITR 358\n(P&H), wherein it was held that reassessment proceedings can\nvalidly cover additional issues even if the original reason for\nreopening does not survive. The same principle was reiterated in CIT\nv. MehakFinvest (P) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 769 (P&H), where the\nHon'ble Court held that even if no addition is made on the issue\nforming the basis of r…

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1124/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde &

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1123/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

…thus\nenables the Assessing Officer to assess, reassess or recompute any\nsource of income other than that referred to in the recorded reasons.\nThis position has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana\nHigh Court in Manjinder Singh Kang v. CIT [2012] 344 ITR 358\n(P&H), wherein it was held that reassessment proceedings can\nvalidly cover additional issues even if the original reason for\nreopening does not survive. The same principle was reiterated in CIT\nv. MehakFinvest (P) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 769 (P&H), where the\nHon'ble Court held that even if no addition is made on the issue\nforming the basis of r…

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1122/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1121/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde &

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

ITA 962/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

…s, even though reason for notice for 'such income' which may have escaped assessment, may not survive Hon'ble High Court Of Punjab And Haryana in the case of Majinder Singh Kang v Commissioner of Income-tax [2012] 25 taxmann.com 124 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2012] 344 ITR 358 (Punjab & Haryana) [13-09-2010] examined this issue. Head notes of this decision are as under- "Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Income escaping assessment General -Assessment year 2001-02 In reassessment, Assessing Officer can make addition even on ground on which reassessment notice might not have been issued, but he arrives at a conclu…

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

ITA 961/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

…gs, even though reason for notice for 'such income' which may have escaped assessment, may not survive Hon’ble High Court Of Punjab And Haryana in the case of Majinder Singh Kang v Commissioner of Income-tax [2012] 25 taxmann.com 124 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2012] 344 ITR 358 (Punjab & Haryana) [13-09-2010] examined this issue. Head notes of this decision are as under-"Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Income escaping assessment General -Assessment year 2001-02 In reassessment, Assessing Officer can make addition even on ground on which reassessment notice might not have been issued, but he arrives at a conclusi…

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

…eand was affirmed by the Hon’ble Court in para no.15 of its order. The relevant extract of para 12 and 15are reproduced as under:- “12. xxxxxx As already noted, except for the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Majinder Singh Kang Versus CIT [2012] 344 ITR 358 (P & H) all courts have uniformly taken a view that Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act does not change the situation in so far as the present controversy is concerned. The leading decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Versus Jet Airways (I) Ltd. Has been followed by different High Courts. In the case of CIT Versus Jet Airways…

M/S. PARVESH CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2714/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…the\nentire proceedings stood vitiated in law and deserved to be quashed.\n4.3 In opposition, learned Departmental Representative placed\nreliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High\nCourt in the case of Majinder Singh Kang v. CIT [(2012) 344 ITR 358\n(P&H)], wherein it was held that even if no addition is made on the\nissue originally recorded for reopening, additions made on other\nissues during the course of reassessment would not render the\nentire reassessment void, provided such issues independently\nwarrant scrutiny.\n5. We have heard the rival submissions advanced by the parties\nand…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. ARTISTIC FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, 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/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. INDIAN BROADCASTING FOUNDATION

ITA/469/2023HC Delhi20 Mar 2025

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 25Section 260A

…is not capable of legal definition, but a word of current vernacular. The words 'invest' and 'investment' are to be taken in the business sense of laying out of money for interest or profit.” 41. In Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Alarippu: (2000) 244 ITR 358, the Coordinate Bench of this Court considered the distinction between the terms „investment‟ and „deposit‟ within the framework of Section 11(5) and Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The case involved a charitable institution that had advanced funds to Mahila Haat, and the Revenue contended that such advancement amounted to an investment or depo…

ITO, WARD 6(1), MOHALI vs. AMARDEEP SINGH HIRA, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 444/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 69

…sdictional High Court did not concur with the view taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court as well as of Hon'ble A.Y.2011-12 5 Delhi High Court. He placed on record judgement of Hon'ble Punjab 8b Haryana High Court in the case of Majinder Singh Kang Vs CIT 344 ITR 358 and CIT Vs Mehak Finvest 367 ITR 769. Copies of both these judgements have been placed on the record. The Hon'ble Court in the judgement of Mehak Finvest duly took note of judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways 331 ITR 236 as well as of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories. Hon'ble High Court…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…as taxable under Section 69C. IV. Judicial Precedents Supporting Revenue’s Case 1. CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. [198 ITR 297 (SC)] o The scope of reassessment includes assessing all income that has escaped taxation. 2. Majinder Singh Kang v. CIT [344 ITR 358 (P&H)] o Any income coming to the AO’s notice during reassessment can be validly taxed, even if not initially stated in the reasons for reopening. 3. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [41 ITR 191 (SC)] o Failure to disclose material facts fully and truly justifies reopening. 4. Surendra Kumar Jain v. CIT [2019 SCC OnLine Del 9393] o Procedural co…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 875/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…le under Section 69C.\n\nIV. Judicial Precedents Supporting Revenue’s Case\n\n1. CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. [198 ITR 297 (SC)]\n• The scope of reassessment includes assessing all income that has\nescaped taxation.\n\n2. Majinder Singh Kang v. CIT [344 ITR 358 (P&H)]\n• Any income coming to the AO’s notice during reassessment can be validly\ntaxed, even if not initially stated in the reasons for reopening.\n\n3. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [41 ITR 191 (SC)]\n• Failure to disclose material facts fully and truly justifies reopening.\n\n4. Surendra Kumar Jain v. CIT [2019 SCC OnLine Del 9393]\n• Pro…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

ITA 873/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…taxable under Section 69C.\nIV. Judicial Precedents Supporting Revenue’s Case\n1. CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. [198 ITR 297 (SC)]\no The scope of reassessment includes assessing all income that has\nescaped taxation.\n2. Majinder Singh Kang v. CIT [344 ITR 358 (P&H)]\no Any income coming to the AO’s notice during reassessment can be validly\ntaxed, even if not initially stated in the reasons for reopening.\n3. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [41 ITR 191 (SC)]\no Failure to disclose material facts fully and truly justifies reopening.\n4. Surendra Kumar Jain v. CIT [2019 SCC OnLine Del 9393]\no Procedu…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 872/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…taxable under Section 69C.\nIV. Judicial Precedents Supporting Revenue’s Case\n1. CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. [198 ITR 297 (SC)]\n- The scope of reassessment includes assessing all income that has\nescaped taxation.\n2. Majinder Singh Kang v. CIT [344 ITR 358 (P&H)]\n- Any income coming to the AO’s notice during reassessment can be validly\ntaxed, even if not initially stated in the reasons for reopening.\n3. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [41 ITR 191 (SC)]\n- Failure to disclose material facts fully and truly justifies reopening.\n4. Surendra Kumar Jain v. CIT [2019 SCC OnLine Del 9393]\n- Procedu…

SHRI RAJESHKUMAR MAHESHBHAI MANEK,ANJAR KUTCH vs. THE ITO WARD-2, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, additional legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal & Shri Brijesh ParekhFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(3)

…erefore, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that re-assessment proceedings may be quashed and for that learned Counsel relied on the following judgements: (i)CIT vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani 214 Taxmann 38 (Gujarat H. C.). (ii)Majinder Singh Kang v. CIT [2012] 344 ITR 358 (Punj. & Har.) (iii) CIT v. Jet Airways Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236. (iv)Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 336 ITR 136/200. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 9. We…

Showing 1–20 of 83 · Page 1 of 5