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

398 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#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 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

Mamta Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 50(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 477/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 269SSection 69A

…reopened, the Assessing Officer cannot assess any other item of income. The same view has been expressed in the following decisions as well: 1. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani, (2013) 355 ITR 172 (Guj.) 2. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd Vs CIT, 336 ITR 136 (Del. HC) 8. Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, I have no hesitation in holding that the addition made of Rs.6,49,177/- is unsustainable. Accordingly, I delete the addition. Ground is allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 7th July, 2022…

Kusum Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 48(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 7077/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

Gyanendra Kumar Bansal (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 59(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 2919/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2010-11 Gyanendra Kumar Bansal (Huf), Vs. Ito, 25, Dayanand Vihar, Ward-59(3), Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aachg9684E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjeev Saxena, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2022 Order

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Saxena, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 69C

…CIT, vide ITA No.4096/Del/2018 for AY 2005-06, dated 27.04.2020, submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by this order and judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) and the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2010) 331 ITR 236 (Bom). The ld. Counsel submitted that no addition has been made on the sole issue raised in the satisfaction note for initiation of reassessment proceedings and the addition has been made on different ground which was not record…

Prem Singh, Sonipat vs. ITO, Ward-3, Sonipat

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 598/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Rano Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 3

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.598/Del./2020 Assessment Year 2010-2011 Shri Prem Singh The ITO, S/o. Sh. Todar Mal, Near Ward 3, [vs. Shiva Mandir, Village-Liwan Sonepat. Po-Rathdana, Sonepat, Haryana. Haryana – 131 029. PIN – 131 001. PAN BYQPS8735P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Rano Jain, Advocate & Ms. Mansi Jain, C.A. For Revenue : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 22.06.2022 ORDER This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Learned Commi…

Achal Kumar Malhotra, Haryana vs. Pr. CIT, Haryana

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

ITA 455/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, ADvFor Respondent: Shri Ishtiyaque Ahmed, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…143(3) of the Act it has been held that the respondent assessee had been able to show and establish the genuineness of and capacity to make the said investment. 10. Similar issue had arisen before this Court in 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…

Bharat Singh, Haryana vs. ITO, Rewari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3015/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Astha Chandrabharat Singh Vs. Ito S/O. Shri Mangtu, Ward – 2 Village Jonawas Rewari (Dungarwas), Distt. Rewari Haryana

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Bharat Singh Vs. ITO S/o. Shri Mangtu, Ward – 2 Village Jonawas Rewari (Dungarwas), Distt. Rewari Haryana PAN No. ACBPS 3109 D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Amit Goel, C.A. Shri Nipun Mittal, C.A. Revenue by Shri Rajinder Jha, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 28.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 23.05.2022 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.03.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax…

M/S.Balaji Bullion & Commodities (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-40, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1291/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

For Appellant: Shri N.M. Porwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 153ASection 153BSection 37Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner of (India) Private Limited Income–tax, 118/120, 3rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADCBO236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner of Ltd. Income–tax, 118/120, 3rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCL0236H Assessee by : Shri N.M. Porwal, Adv Revenue by : Shri Dr. Mahesh Ak…

Anm Fincap P Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8757/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kr. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kureen, Sr. DR

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

…ade by the AO on the issues on which jurisdiction to make reassessment was assumed, the AO was not entitled to make addition on the other issues coming across in the course of assessment. Reliance is placed on the decision of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT 336 ITR 136(Del) (Tax Effect: Rs.15,44,399/-) 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and circumstances of the cases in upholding the addition of Rs.40,00,000/- u/s 68 of the IT Act holding the share capital as unexplained cash credit ignoring the fact that the assessee has discharged its initial onus u/s 68 of the IT Act explaining nature and source of the…

Karan Polymers Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated herein above

ITA 270/KOL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Sri Aby T. Varkey, Judicial Member & Sri Manish Borad, Accountant Member) I.T.A. No.: 270/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Karan Polymers Pvt. Ltd.........................................................Appellant [PAN: AABCK 3114 F] Vs. Pr. CIT, Kolkata-2................................................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. and Ms. Puja Somani, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Md. Ghayas Uddin, CIT (D/R), appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : February 28th, 2022 Dat…

M/S Ashok Khandelwal, Dhamtari vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 223/RPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 223/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Ashok Khandelwal Tulsi Bhawan, Opp. Nehru Garden, Ratnabandha Road, Dhamtari-493 773 (C.G.) Pan : Aaifa8368F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :14.03.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement :05.04.2022

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…r of fact not escaped assessment, then it would not be open to the Assessing Officer to independently assess some other income. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT ( Asst.) Vs. Major Deepak Mehta (2012) 344 ITR 641 ( Chhattisgarh). 10 M/s. Ashok Khandelwal Vs. DCIT 11. Considering the facts involved in the present case before us in light of the aforesaid settled position of law, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer without making any addition as regards the issue on the basis of which the case of the assessee was re-opened u/s.147 of th…

Sh. Hafizuddin Hazi, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3690/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 150(2)Section 151(2)Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 Hafizuddin Hazi, Vs ITO, C/o Raj Kumar & Associates, CA, Ward-48 (2), L-7A (LGF), South Extn., Part-2, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAQPH6525F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Raj Kumar, CA & Shri Sachin Kumar, CA Revenue by : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 18.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 16.02.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29th March, 2016…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh Vikramaditya Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 269/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…ncome-tax [2014] 272 CTR 56 (Delhi) viii. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mohmed Juned Dadani[2014] 355 ITR 172 (Gujarat) 40.1 So far as the argument of the Ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue that judgment in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT 120111 336 ITR 136 is no longer good law since the judgment has been OVERTURNED by the later Bench in the case of CIT vs. Jakhotia Plastics P. Ltd 77 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, (2018) 94 Taxmann.com 89 (Del) when they have held differently is concerned, he submitted that in fact in a…

ACIT, Cir-II, Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laxmi, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 268/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

ACIT, Jammu vs. Dr Karan Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2007[1998-99\u005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005c]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh M.K. Ajat Shatru, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 263/ASR/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Guwahati vs. Fortune Vanijya Private Limited, Guwahati

In the result both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 21/GTY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati10 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble V.P (Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

…in respect of cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. For this, he relied on the ratio of the decisions rendered by the case of Hon’ble High court of Bombay in the case of Jet Airways (331 ITR 236) & Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT (336 ITR 136), though in the context of reopening u/s. 147 of the Act. So, according to Shri Dudhwewala, the AO’s action of making addition u/s. 68 of the Act, was even otherwise, legally impermissible. 30. From our discussion (supra) it is clear that, only if any of specified ‘asset/s’ as defined in Explanation (2)is unearthed during the course of search an…

Shri, Iqbal Ahmed Gulambhai Ansari, Valsad vs. ITO Ward-2, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 294/SRT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Iqbal Ahmed Gulamnabi The Income Tax Officer, Ansari, Ward-2, Valsad. Vs Ayesha Bakery, Dhobi Talav, Shapur Nagar, Valsad. Pan: Aocpa 3493 H Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 44A

…e made addition and some other grounds which did not form part of reasons recorded by him. 9. We find that similar view that taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Jet Airways (supra) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs CIT (336 ITR 136 Delhi). Therefore, in view of the aforesaid legal position, we find merit in the submission of ld.AR of the assessee that in absence of addition on the ground which did not form part of reasons recorded, the AO could not have make addition on some other ground, therefore, the plea of the ld.AR of the assessee is allowed and assessment order dated…

Chandrakant Raghunathrao Goje, Nanded vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nanded

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

ITA 603/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.603/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chandrakant Raghunathrao Goje, Prop. New Marathwada Traders, Sant Kripa Market, Nanded. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Abjpg1263D बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nanded. Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.12.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Aurangabad (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 08.01.2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under :- The Appellant Is An Individual & Dealer In Machinery Goods. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Was Filed On 07.10.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,45,270/- & There Was No Scrutiny Assessment Against The Said Return Of Income. Subsequently, Based On The Information Received From The Sales Tax Department That The Assessee Is Involved In The Bogus Purchases, A Notice U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…f several expenses. It is contended that when the Assessing Officer had not made addition in respect of items for which the reassessment was made, no other addition can be made in the light of the decisions in the case of (i) RanbaxyLaboratories Ltd. vs. CIT, 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) and (ii) CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). 8. The ld. Sr. DR also agreed with the above proposition. 9. In view of the settled position of law, in the present case since no addition was made in respect of items for which the reassessment was sought to be reopened, no other addition can be made. Accordingly, the additional…

Falguni Jagdish Raval, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-4(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 639/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2010-11 Falguni Jagdishbhai Raval, Income Tax Officer, C-501, Gaurav Tower, Vs Ward-4(2)(2), Nr. Nutan School, Rannapark, Ahmedabad Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad-380063 Pan : Ajjpr 6230 P अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "त् "त् यथ" "त् "त् यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/12/2021 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Rajpal Yadav: The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A) In Short] Dated 15.01.2019 Passed For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. In Response To The Notice Of Hearing, No One Has Come Present On Behalf Of The Assessee. Therefore, With The Assistance Of Learned Departmental Representative, We Have Gone Through The Record Carefully & Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal Ex-Parte Qua The Assessee.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

…e escaped income; however, no addition of this income has been made. Recently, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani, [2013] 355 ITR 172 (Guj), Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd Vs CIT, 336 ITR 136 (Del HC) and also Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., 331 ITR 236 (Bom) have held that if no additions are being made on an issue for which an assessment was re-opened, then any other escaped income came to the notice of the Assessing Officer during the re- assessment proceedings cannot be added. In the present…

Ab Sciex Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax. 1(1)(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 515/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri O. P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

…ell as ITO Vs. Kushal Timber Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 578/Del/2010 dated 21/10/2015). The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 195 Taxman 117 as well as Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del HC). 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the re-assessment proceedings were very much proper and the Assessing Officer who has initiated reopeneing as a valid jurisdiction. Thus, the Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order. The Ld. DR mentioned that the assessee withdrawn the writ petition in respect of challenged of jurisdiction of the Assessing…