How many judgments cite Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT?

384 judgments on BharatTax cite Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT (336 ITR 136), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 142(1), Section 151.

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT

336 ITR 136High Court2011#187 most cited

What is Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

In reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148, the Assessing Officer can assess other income not specified in the original notice if the initial ground for reopening assessment is found to be valid. However, if the income for which the assessment was initially reopened is found not to have escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer cannot proceed to assess any other income.

384

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening of assessment · scope of reassessment · income escaping assessment · other income assessed · initial reason for reopening · quashing reassessment · Jet Airways principle · reassessment proceedings

Also reported as

12 Taxmann.com 74200 Taxmann 242242 CTR 11760 DTR 77

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 68 Section 142(1)Section 151 Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 148(2)income escaping assessment reason to believe kelvinator escapement of income reopening of assessment change of opinion notice under section 148 tangible material reassessment proceedings regular assessment service of notice

Judgments citing Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT

DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIK HIGHER SECONDRY SCHOOL PRABANDH KARINI SABHA,JHABRERA ROORKEE vs. ITO WARD 1(3)(4), ROORKEE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 212/DDN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Sahni, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 147Section 148

…bha Rs.13,17,261/- in question. It is thus clear that the learned assessing authority has nowhere made any addition qua the above sole reason of reopening. 6. That being the clinching case, we hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to quash the impugned reopening for the above precise reason in very terms. 7. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 27/02/2026. (Manish Agarwal) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 27/02/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS…

RAMESH PURSHOTTAM MODI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6577/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarramesh Purshottam Ito Circle 22(1) Modi Income Tax 303, Modi House, Linking Vs. Department, Road, Khar West, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400 052 Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai 0 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aahpm2793F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashwani Kumar A/W Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 94(7)Section 94(8)

…epresentative placed strong reliance upon the judicial precedents of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (331 ITR 236) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (336 ITR 136)where it was held that the Assessing Officer, upon forming a reason to believe and issuing notice under section 148, must assess or reassess “such income” which formed the basis of reopening, and only thereafter the course of proceedings. It has been categorically held that if the income which was the foundation of the reasons recorded is not ult…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AMLUCKIE INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2542/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2541 & 2542/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Dcit, Cc-1(2), Kolkata…………..…....…………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Ltd.……………….....……...…..…..Respondent 2Nd Floor, 10 Princep Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan: Aacca6749H] Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kr. Pati, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 21.07.2025 Of The Cit(A)-20, Kolkata Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2013–14 2015-16 Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Arisen From Same Appellate Order, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeal Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 35 Days & The Revenue Has Filed Separate Petitions For Condonation Of The Delays. After Going Over The Said Petitions, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind Such Delays & Consequently, The Delays In Filing Both The Appeal Are Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeals On Merits.

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…nd invoked, inter alia, Sawankumar T. Jajoo [2025] 473ITR 201 (Cal), Harsh Vardhan Bansal [2024] 168 taxmann.com 188 (Del), Archit Gupta 210 ITD 27 (Del), Kantibhai D. Narola 436 ITR 302 (Guj), Shapoorji Pallonji &Co. 288 Taxman 661 (SC), Ranbaxy Laboratories 336 ITR 136 (Del), Shri Ram Singh306 ITR 343 (Raj), Dhakeswari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) and the Calcutta High Court’s recent decision in Principal CIT v. Sawankumar T. Jajoo (supra) to contend that once primary evidence is furnished the onus shifts to the department and that reassessment premised on borrowed satisfaction and wrong facts is void. After ex…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AMLUCKIE INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2541/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

M/S STANCE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-32, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No

ITA 2792/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2791 & 2792/Del/2025 (Assessment Yearss 2016-17 & 2017-18)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…Pvt. Ltd., the AO has no jurisdiction to go beyond the reasons recorded and cannot made the addition on the issue which are not forming part of the reasons recorded. 9. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Dehi) has held as under: "In the present case, as is noted above, the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the justifications given by the assessee regarding the items viz. club fees, gifts and presents and provision for leave encashment, but, however, during the assessment proceedings, he found the deduction under sections 80HH and 80-1 as clai…

M/S STANCE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-32, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No

ITA 2791/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2791 & 2792/Del/2025 (Assessment Yearss 2016-17 & 2017-18)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

VEDANT BHATNAGAR,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 49(1), DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 394/DEL/2026[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 394/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Vedant Bhatnagar, Vs Income Tax Officer, 57, Pratap Nagar, Hari Nagar, Ward-49(1), New Delhi-110064 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajepb2530P Assessee By: Sh. Nitin Gulati, Adv. & Ms. Reena Gandhi, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-5, Mumbai’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1083074346(1) Dated 27.11.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Nitin Gulati, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 394/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Vedant Bhatnagar, Vs Income Tax Officer, 57, Pratap Nagar, Hari Nagar, Ward-49(1), New Delhi-110064 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AJEPB2530P Assessee by: Sh. Nitin Gulati, Adv. & Ms. Reena Gandhi, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 11.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 11.02.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-5, Mumbai’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025…

SHIMLA W/O SHRI KIRAN SINGH,UTTARPRADESH vs. SANDHAYA MAURYA ITO WARD-2 (2) (3), GHAZIABAD

Appeal is allowed

ITA 7041/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 7041/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Shimla W/O Sh. Kiran Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, Village-Kudiya Gadi, Dasna Dehat, Ward-2(2)(3), Dasna, Ghaziabad-201015 Ghaziabad-201002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Mnrps2732P Assessee By: Sh. Sahil Sharma, Adv. & Sh. Sanjay Parashar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/107983568(1) Dated 21.08.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Sahil Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148ASection 56

…e learned assessing authority nowhere been the impugned addition based on the foregoing sole reason of reopening. This reopening found is not sustainable in law. This being the clinching case, I hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to quash the impugned reopening for the above precise reason in very terms. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 10/02/2026. (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 10/02/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS*…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. STAR WIRE INDIA LTD.

ITA/738/2025HC Delhi04 Feb 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Section 148

…ereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1961”) no additions were made in the corresponding Assessment Order dated 29.05.2023. 2. The Tribunal relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Del) and ATS Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. v. ACIT reported in [2025] 473 ITR 595 (Del), and held that since the reason for which the assessment was re-opened itself did not exist, the AO could not proceed further and assess This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. STAR WIRE INDIA LTD.

ITA/736/2025HC Delhi03 Feb 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 148

…he order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/02/2026 at 12:52:36 upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Del) and ATS Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT [2025] 473 ITR 595 (Del). 3. Mr. Rohit Jain, learned counsel for the respondent at the outset submitted that since the notices under Section 148 in both the cases were issued on 29.05.2021 and assessment years being 2013-14 and 2014-15, the notices were in any case time-barred, as has been held by Ho…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. STAR WIRE INDIA LTD.

ITA/737/2025HC Delhi03 Feb 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Section 148

…he order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/02/2026 at 12:52:37 upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Del) and ATS Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT [2025] 473 ITR 595 (Del). 3. Mr. Rohit Jain, learned counsel for the respondent at the outset submitted that since the notices under Section 148 in both the cases were issued on 29.05.2021 and assessment years being 2013-14 and 2014-15, the notices were in any case time-barred, as has been held by Ho…

BINDU DHARMESH BHATT,VADODARA vs. ASSTT.CIT., CIRCLE-1(3),, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 618/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 274

…pening is not justified. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani -355 ITR 172 (Guj); ii) CIT vs. Jet Airways-331 ITR 236 (Bom); I.T.A No. 618/Ahd/2023 Bindu Dharmesh Bhatt, A.Y. 2011-12 iii) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. - 336 ITR 136 )Del); The Ld. AR further submitted that as regards not disclosing "investment in commodities" amounting to Rs.5,99,250/- in ITR, no such investment has been made by the assessee. As regards not disclosing "interest income" amounting to Rs.2,70,173/- in ITR, such interest income is part of larger interest income offered for tax in ITR. The very…

RADHA BANSAL,KARNAL vs. ITO WARD 5(3), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8692/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 8692/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Radha Bansal, Vs Income Tax Officer, H.No. 67/14, Urban Estate, Karnal, Ward-5(3), Haryana-132001 Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahrpb7607E Assessee By: Sh. Vinay Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1083011700(1) Dated 26.11.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Vinay Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 8692/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Radha Bansal, Vs Income Tax Officer, H.No. 67/14, Urban Estate, Karnal, Ward-5(3), Haryana-132001 Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AHRPB7607E Assessee by: Sh. Vinay Goel, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 28.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 28.01.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083011700(1)…

KOMAL KUMAR,SAMBHALHERA vs. ASSESMENT UNIT, ASSESMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

Appeal is allowed

ITA 7482/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 7482/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Komal Kumar, Vs Assessment Unit, Vill. Sambhalhera, Jansath, Muzaffarnagar, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh-251002 Uttar Pradesh-251314 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bmzpk6093F Assessee By: Sh. Sankalp Malik, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.01.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21 Arises Against The Assessing Officer’S Din & Order No. Itba/Ast/S/147/2024-25/1074540022(1) Dated 16.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Sankalp Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 7482/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Komal Kumar, Vs Assessment Unit, Vill. Sambhalhera, Jansath, Muzaffarnagar, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh-251002 Uttar Pradesh-251314 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BMZPK6093F Assessee by: Sh. Sankalp Malik, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 27.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 27.01.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2020-21 arises against the Assessing Officer’s DIN & order No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2024-25/10745400…

SHYAMA SHYAM INFRADEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AGRA vs. ITO 2(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 503/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshshyama Shyam Vs. Ito, Infradevelopers Pvt Ltd, Ward-2(1)(2), Khasra No. 961, Bhahistabad, Agra Sikandra, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aatcs9899R Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Agarwal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

…in dispute is directly covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways India Ltd reported in 331 ITR 236 (Bom) ; decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 336 ITR 136 (Del) and the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mohammed Junaid Dadani reported in 355 ITR 172 (Guj). The ld CIT(A) had laid more emphasis on provisions of Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act which permits the ld AO to make addition on issues that are not subject matter of reasons recorded for reopening. In our…

VIBHA BHATIA ,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 47(2), DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8760/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 8760/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Vibha Bhatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, 573, Kartar Ishwar Bhawan, Karol Ward-47(2), Bagh, New Delhi-110006 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aehpb1815P Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1081815564(1) Dated 16.10.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

…it of Rs.28,03,095/- in question. It is thus clear that the learned assessing authority has nowhere made any addition qua the above sole reason of reopening. 4. That being the clinching case, I hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to quash the impugned reopening for the above precise reason in very terms. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 22/01/2026. (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 22/01/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS*…

KEDAR GHATI ENTERPRISES,RUDRAPRAYAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SRINAGAR (GARHWAL)

Appeal is allowed

ITA 150/DDN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 150/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Kedar Ghati Enterprises, Vs Income Tax Officer, Jawahar Nagar, Baniyari, Income Tax Office, Mukkus Augustmuni Rudraprayag, Chamoli, Residency, Sringar, Uttarakhand-246421 (Garhwal), Srinagar, Uttarakhand-246174 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aasfk8721C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/10787788588(1) Dated 22.07.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest. It Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex-Parte.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member ITA No. 150/DDN/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Kedar Ghati Enterprises, Vs Income Tax Officer, Jawahar Nagar, Baniyari, Income Tax Office, Mukkus Augustmuni Rudraprayag, Chamoli, Residency, Sringar, Uttarakhand-246421 (Garhwal), Srinagar, Uttarakhand-246174 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AASFK8721C Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 12.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 12.01.2026 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: Thi…

CHINTAN HARSHAD KANAKIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.3 of appeal is allowed

ITA 2822/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhsmt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Chintan Harshad Kanakia, Ito Ward 42 (1)(1) Room No. 103, Sacovar Apt., Sagar Complex, 703, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Saibaba Nagar, Borivali (W), Bkc, Mumbai -400051 Mumbai Pan – Agnpk6023E

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 234BSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…r re- assess any other income which came to his notice subsequently during the re-assessment proceeding. To support her submission the Ld. AR also relied upon the following decision.  CIT Vs Shri Ram Singh(306 ITR 343 Raj),  Ranbaxy Laboratory Ltd Vs CIT (336 ITR 136 Delhi),  Tata Communication Transformation Services Ltd Vs ACIT (ITA No. 358/ Mum/2022, 8. Secondly, on merit, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted assessee purchased 30,000 share of Parag Shilpa Investments Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 12.00 lakhs by making payment through account payee cheque. Later on the shares of Parag Shilpa Investmen…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘A’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.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 t…

MUKESH GUPTA,KAMALA NAGAR vs. DLC-CC-(1)(13), DELHI

ITA 7427/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 7396/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Ita No. 7426/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Ita No. 7427/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2023-24 Mukesh Gupta, Vs Acit, D-89, 3Rd Floor, Kamla Nagar, Central Circle-3, Jawahar Nagar, North Delhi, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110007 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akopg1709J Assessee By: Sh. Govind Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 Order These Assessee’S Three Appeals Ita Nos. 7396, 7426 & 7427/Del/2025, For Assessment Years 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2023-24, Arise Against The Cit(A)-23, Delhi’S Din & Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1081204873(1), 1081205368(1) & 1081205086(1) All Dated 26.09.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Govind Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

…clear that the learned assessing authority has nowhere made any addition qua the above sole reason of reopening involving the assessee’s sale consideration. 4. That being the clinching case, I hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to quash the impugned reopening for the above precise reason in very terms. 5. These assessee’s three appeals ITA Nos. 7396, 7426 & 7427/Del/2025 are allowed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23/12/2025.…

Showing 1–20 of 384 · Page 1 of 20

...