Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT

336 ITR 136High Court2011#183 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.

398

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 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 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 68Section 142(1)Section 151Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 148(2)income escaping assessmentreason to believekelvinatorescapement of incomereopening of assessmentchange of opinionnotice under section 148tangible materialreassessment proceedingsregular assessmentservice of notice

Judgments citing Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT

Ultra Tech Cement Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT- CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 220/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9th Floor 2nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 PAN: AAACL6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) v. M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9th Floor 2nd Floo…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1789/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9th Floor 2nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 PAN: AAACL6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) v. M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9th Floor 2nd Floo…

M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent Cir-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1466/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9th Floor 2nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 PAN: AAACL6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) v. M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9th Floor 2nd Floo…

Aj Energy Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1190/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manvendra Goel, CIT(DR)
Section 142(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

…respect of which proceedings were initiated especially when the reason for which the case reopened have ceased to survive. The issue in hand is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 336 ITR 136 dated 03.06.2011, wherein the Court has held as under: "Section 147 has this effect that the Assessing Officer has to assessee or reassess the income ("such income") which escaped assessment and which was the basis of the formation of belief and if he does so, he can also assess or reassess any other income which has escaped assessment and which…

Saurabh Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 63(5), New Delhi

ITA 4875/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ncome Tax-4 Versus G & G Pharma India Ltd., [2016] 384 ITR 147 (iii) Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., [2017] 396 ITR 5 (iv) Anirudh Kumar vs ITO,ITA No. 1167/Del/2019, dt. 21.07.2022 (v) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) (vi) CIT vs. Jet Airways Other Citation: (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) (vii) Rajesh Kumar Vs. ITO, ITA No. 1465/Del/2020, dt. 03.08.2022 7. On the other hand learned DR supported the orders of learned tax authorities below. 8. Appreciating the material on record it can be observed from the copy of reasons recorded, as made available at page…

Ujjwal Microfinance Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 27(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3877/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…of Bombay [supra] it would not be open to the Assessing Officer to assess income under some other issue independently. 14. Similar issue had arisen before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited versus CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Delhi). In the said case, the Division Bench had also examined Explanation 3 to Section 147, which was inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act of 2009 with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1989. Reference was made to the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT versus Jet Airways India Limited, (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) in which it has been held as…

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4564/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…l provisions of AS-15. The aforesaid provision does not represent contribution to any pension fund, and hence, the provisions of sections 36(1)(iv)/36(1)(v) or 40A(7)/40A(9) or 43B of the Act are not applicable. 22. In CIT vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. [2011] 334 ITR 341 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court was concerned with a case where the assessee had introduced a pension scheme for its managerial employees which was over and above the benefits available under the superannuation scheme of the company. The Delhi High Court held that the pension scheme of the assessee does not envisage any regular contribution to any…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3645/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…l provisions of AS-15. The aforesaid provision does not represent contribution to any pension fund, and hence, the provisions of sections 36(1)(iv)/36(1)(v) or 40A(7)/40A(9) or 43B of the Act are not applicable. 22. In CIT vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. [2011] 334 ITR 341 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court was concerned with a case where the assessee had introduced a pension scheme for its managerial employees which was over and above the benefits available under the superannuation scheme of the company. The Delhi High Court held that the pension scheme of the assessee does not envisage any regular contribution to any…

Veena Devi, Muzaffarpur vs. Pr.CIT-1, Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 41/PAT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 41/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Veena Devi Pr. Cit, Patna-1 Vs Krishnapuri, Nh 28 Bhagwanpur Chowk Muzaffarpur - 842001 [Pan: Aoyps8291P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Maskara, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patna-1, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 23/03/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of Eighteen (18) Days In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Ld Pcit, Patna Is Wrong, Illegal, Arbitrary & Against The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Maskara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263

…h may come to his notice subsequently in the course of proceeding under section 147. Case Laws: 1. Dy CIT v. Takshila Education Society [2016] 378 ITR 520 (Patna HC) 2. CIT v Shri Ram Singh [2008] 306 ITR 343 (Raj HC) 3. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v CIT [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Delhi HC) 4. CIT v Jet Airways (1) Ltd [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom HC) 5. CIT v Dr Devendra Gupta [2011] 336 ITR 59 (Raj HC) 6. ACIT v Bharat Inftel Ltd [2015] 42 CCH 374 (Del Trib) 7. Martech Peripherals (P) Ltd v DCIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 73 (Mad) 6. For that the other grounds, if any, may kindly be heard at the time of hearing.” 4. At the outset…

Raju Devi Saini, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed ‘’

ITA 411/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 148Section 69C

…ade on the ground of reopening which had thus ceased to exist. Hence, the addition has no legs to stand and deserves to be held as ab initio null & void, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs CIT(2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) 5. That the authorities below have erred in making the addition / confirming the addition, ignoring the fact that they did not have jurisdiction to proceed with the reassessment, once it was found that the ground mentioned in the notice u/s 148 were incorrect and non- existent as held by Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs Shri Ram Singh (2008)…

Mathletics LLP Formerly Mathletics (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 97/KOL/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Mathletics Llp Formerly Ito, Ward-9(1), Mathletics (P) Ltd. Kolkata C/O. P.K. Himmatsinghka, 41 Vs. B.B. Ganguly Street, Central Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- 700012. Pan: Aaxfm 4704 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Pramod Kumar Himmatsinghka, Ar Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104812839(1) Dated 21.12.2022 Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2015-16. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar Himmatsinghka, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151

…twhile private limited company which relates to profit on redemption of mutual fund units. Thus, contended that there is no escapement of income. 7.2. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 336 ITR 136 and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Jet Airways India Ltd. 331 ITR 236. The ratio laid down in these decisions is that reassessment must be in the first place, in respect of income escaped assessment for which the reasons were recorded and only thereafter in respect to some other items of escaped income. If, however, the income, e…

DCIT, CC-06, New Delhi vs. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 79/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A) & Put

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…o addition has been made on the subject on which reopening was done, the other addition made in this case is not sustainable inasmuch as the issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). Ld. CIT (A) passed an elaborate order and the same may be gainfully read as under :- “4.7 From perusal of the assessment order as well as above facts, it is observed that the Assessing Officer recorded reasons for reopening this case on the gro…

ITO, Ward-1(4), Faridabad vs. Keshav Medichem P.Ltd, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 154/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 14Section 147Section 148Section 68

…of Bombay [supra] it would not be open to the Assessing Officer to assess income under some other issue independently. 19. Similar issue had arisen before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited versus CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Delhi). In the said case, the Division Bench had also examined Explanation 3 to Section 147, which was inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act of 2009 with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1989. Reference was made to the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT versus Jet Airways India Limited, (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) in which it has been held as…

Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer vs. CIT(Exemption)/ ITO (Exemption), Jaipur / Jodhpur

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 89/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…or whatever reasons). If it is so, the AO is not permitted to make additions of other incomes as held in various cases. 7.3 Supporting Case Laws: Similar issue had arisen. 31 | P a g e 7.3.1 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT (2011) 242 CTR (Del) 117, (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del). In the said case, the Division Bench had also examined Expin. 3 to s. 147, which was inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act of 2009 with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1989. 7.3.2 CIT vs. Jet Airways India Ltd. (2011) 239 CTR (Born) 183: (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Born) in which it has been held as under : "The effect of s. 147 as it now stands af…

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3176/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

…other income for which reliance was placed mainly on following decisions: (i) CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Limited [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bombay HC)] (ii) CIT v. Double Dot Finance Ltd. [2013] 214 taxman 47 (Bombay HC)] (iii) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT [(2011) (336 ITR 136) (Delhi HC)] 7. On the other hand, Ld.DR vehemently argued the case and relied on the various decisions relied by Assessing Officer, at the same time, she has mainly relied upon finding given by lower authorities and contended that reassessment notice is as per provisions of the Act. 8. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on re…

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3136/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

…other income for which reliance was placed mainly on following decisions: (i) CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Limited [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bombay HC)] (ii) CIT v. Double Dot Finance Ltd. [2013] 214 taxman 47 (Bombay HC)] (iii) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT [(2011) (336 ITR 136) (Delhi HC)] 7. On the other hand, Ld.DR vehemently argued the case and relied on the various decisions relied by Assessing Officer, at the same time, she has mainly relied upon finding given by lower authorities and contended that reassessment notice is as per provisions of the Act. 8. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on re…

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3135/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

…other income for which reliance was placed mainly on following decisions: (i) CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Limited [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bombay HC)] (ii) CIT v. Double Dot Finance Ltd. [2013] 214 taxman 47 (Bombay HC)] (iii) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT [(2011) (336 ITR 136) (Delhi HC)] 7. On the other hand, Ld.DR vehemently argued the case and relied on the various decisions relied by Assessing Officer, at the same time, she has mainly relied upon finding given by lower authorities and contended that reassessment notice is as per provisions of the Act. 8. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on re…

Kapil Kharbanda, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-55(5), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2939/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148

…ent was reopened under Section 147 of the Act. Thus, he submitted, the addition cannot be sustained. In support, he relied upon the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Pvt. Ltd. 195 Taxmann 117; & ii) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs.CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) – (2011) 242 ITR 117. 7. Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals). 4 ITA No.2939/Del./2022 8. I have considered rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 9. From the reasons recorded to reopen the assessment under Section 147 of…

Jsd Steel P.Ltd (Formerly Cbs Steel P.Ltd), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2884/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2011-12

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

…ITA No.181/Del/2016 decided on 24.06.2016 (Delhi-Trib); iii) CIT vs. Cheil Communication India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.578/2012 date of oder 17.04.2013 reported as (2013) 354 ITR 0549 (Delhi) –(2013) 259 CTR 0296(Del.); iv) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) – (2011) 242 ITR117. 10. Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals). 11. I have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. 12. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening of assessment, a copy of which is placed at page 5 of the paper book, rea…

Bhuvneshwari Vyapaar Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax P-CIT, Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1297/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Bhuvneshwari Vyapaar Private Limited Pcit,Mumbai-1 710/A Wing Dattani Plaza Room No. 330, 3 R D Floor, Aayakar Vs. Commercial Premises, Safed Pool, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400 072 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb4386N

For Appellant: Shri. Prakash G. Jhunjhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

…Limited. A.Y. 2010-11 earlier judgments of this Court, this question was not addressed to. The authorities relied upon by him on this point are (i) CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 1/162 Taxman 465 (SC) and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 336 ITR 136/200 Taxman 242/12 taxmann.com 74 (Delhi). In the latter case, the assessing officer had issued notice under Section 148 of the 1961 on the ground that certain items from the assessee's accounts had escaped assessment. The assessing officer was satisfied with assessee's explanation over these heads and no disallowance was made by the assessing off…