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.

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 136)

ACIT Circle- 15 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S D G Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1773/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, M/S. D.G. Infrastructure Circle -15(1)(2), Pvt. Ltd., Room No.483A, 4Th Floor, A-207 Punit Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, Premises Chs, Vs. M.K. Road, Plot No.D-11, Mumbai - 400020 Thane Belapur Road, Turbhe Navi Mumbai, Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aaccd0745L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit -12(2)(1), M/S. Disha Dynamic Room No.142F/262, Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, D-6, Surjit Sangam Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Chsl, Churchgate, Mathuradas Road, Mumbai - 400020 Kandivali West, Mumbai - 400067 Pan: Aadcd9697E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manpreet Singh Duggal, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet Singh Duggal, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…s only that income which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section as having escaped assessment. Further the Ld AR also referred to the decision of Honble Delhi High Court the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd v/s. CIT 336 ITR 136 (Del) it is held that "under Explanation 3 if during the course of the proceedings the Assessing Officer comes to the conclusion that some items have escaped assessment, then notwithstanding that those items were not included in the reasons to believe as recorded for initiation of the proceedings and the notice, he would be competent to make asse…

ITO 15 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Limbo Engineering P Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7277/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…of share premium and share application money and the amount of the 16.60 crores is subsumed in the addition of Rs. 80, 37, 66, 000/-held as unexplained case credit u/s 68. The facts of the M/s. Limbo Enginnering P. Ltd. case in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs CIT 336 ITR 136 (Del) referred to in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (Bom) 331 ITR 236 are distinguishable as much as the reopening was on account of the items of club fees, gifts and presents and provisions leave encashments whereas in the assessment proceedings deduction u/s 80 HH and 80 I as claimed by the assessee was held to be not admissible. In the present c…

DCIT Central Circle-7(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Wellknown Polysters Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1388/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…of share premium and share application money and the amount of the 16.60 crores is subsumed in the addition of Rs. 80, 37, 66, 000/-held as unexplained case credit u/s 68. The facts of the M/s. Limbo Enginnering P. Ltd. case in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs CIT 336 ITR 136 (Del) referred to in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (Bom) 331 ITR 236 are distinguishable as much as the reopening was on account of the items of club fees, gifts and presents and provisions leave encashments whereas in the assessment proceedings deduction u/s 80 HH and 80 I as claimed by the assessee was held to be not admissible. In the present c…

ITO 15 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Limbo Engineering P Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7276/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…of share premium and share application money and the amount of the 16.60 crores is subsumed in the addition of Rs. 80, 37, 66, 000/-held as unexplained case credit u/s 68. The facts of the M/s. Limbo Enginnering P. Ltd. case in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs CIT 336 ITR 136 (Del) referred to in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (Bom) 331 ITR 236 are distinguishable as much as the reopening was on account of the items of club fees, gifts and presents and provisions leave encashments whereas in the assessment proceedings deduction u/s 80 HH and 80 I as claimed by the assessee was held to be not admissible. In the present c…

Ins Finance & Investment P Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 12(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 9266/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, Sr.D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(1)Section 68

…ew of the fact that foundational base of I.T.A. No.9266 /DEL/2019 61 reassessment proceedings gets vitiated. The legal position to this effect is well supported by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT[2011] 336 ITR 136 (Del) and Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom). It was held by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court that Explanation 3 to section 147 will not applicable if no addition is made in respect of issue which was subject matter of notice u/s 148. 30. In the present case, the reasons were recorded only with respect to issue…

Designarch Infrastructure P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8199/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 8199/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, L-7A(Lgf), South Extension, Part-Ii, Ward-7(1), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacfi4218C Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR

Section 127(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…O is legally valid in the absence of a valid addition made based on the reasons recorded is examined in the context of the 9 Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories ltd. Vs CIT 336 ITR 136. The Hon’ble High Court held as under: “11. Now, after the insertion of Explanation 3, as noted above, the position is that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess income in respect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under section 147 though the reasons for such issue were not included in the rea…

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT (OSD)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3699/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman: A.Y : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

…. PCIT is right in treating the order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act as erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 26 Bank of India 27. Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had held in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs CIT, 345 ITR 193 (Delhi)that non-reference to TPO renders the order ‘erroneous’ and prejudicial to Revenue. 28. In this case,the transactions undertaken by the assessee are domestic as well as international transactions and the issues involving domestic and corporate issues were already verified by the Assessing Officer and also the order of ld. CIT(A) merged wi…

Anil K Shah (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 214/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Shri Anil K. Shah (Huf), The Ito Ward – 23(2)(1), 703, Supershav, Nahur Road, 111, Matru Mandir, Sarvodaya Nagar, Mulund (West), Tardeo, Grant Road, Mumbai - 400080 Vs. Mumbai Pan: Aadha5072M (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Shri Anil K. Shah, The Ito Ward – 23(2)(1), 703, Supershav, Nahur Road, 111, Matru Mandir, Sarvodaya Nagar, Mulund (West), Tardeo, Grant Road, Mumbai - 400080 Vs. Mumbai Pan: Aapps6042M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Devendra Jain (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Jernold Michel (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/09/2020

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain (AR)For Respondent: Shri Jernold Michel (DR)

Section 142Section 143Section 144Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…(A) has confirmed the addition made by the AO in the issues not relating to the reasons recorded for reopening. The Ld. counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) submitted that Explanation 3 to section 147 does not empower the AO to make roving enquiries in respect of other matters. Making roving enquiries in respect of other matters is different from something coming to his notice of AO during the course of assessment. The Ld. counsel further submitted that since the Ld. CIT (A) has allowed the l…

M/S. Chander Nagar Chemicals & Minerals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3072/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh.Vinay Chowla, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 24Section 271(1)

…ssing Officer disallowed the business expenses alone; whereas the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the entire business expenses and thereby removed the very basis for reopening proceedings. Basing on the decisions reported in the case of Ranbaxy laboratories vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (del) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom), Ld. AR argued that the moment the reason for initiation of the reassessment proceedings ceases to exist, the disallowance on some other grounds is impermissible under law. 8. Further submission of the Ld. AR is that it is open for the assessee is a to go for composite receipts for l…

M/S. Chander Nagar Chemicals & Minerals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2070/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh.Vinay Chowla, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 24Section 271(1)

…ssing Officer disallowed the business expenses alone; whereas the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the entire business expenses and thereby removed the very basis for reopening proceedings. Basing on the decisions reported in the case of Ranbaxy laboratories vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (del) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom), Ld. AR argued that the moment the reason for initiation of the reassessment proceedings ceases to exist, the disallowance on some other grounds is impermissible under law. 8. Further submission of the Ld. AR is that it is open for the assessee is a to go for composite receipts for l…

A.C.I.T., Central Circle-4(2), Kolkata vs. Smt. Madhu Neotia, Kolkata

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

ITA 2144/KOL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & Shri S. S. Godara, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court]

Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…t the jurisdictional High Court i.e. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in ITAT No. 60 of 2014 in GA No. 1736 of 2014 CIT Vs. M/s. Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd. has concurred with the view taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgment in Ranbaxy Laboratories Vs. CIT 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Jet Airways India Ltd. 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) approved the Tribunal’s view on the same which is reproduced as under: 9 I.T.A. Nos. 2143 & 2144/Kol/2019 Shri Harsh Vardhan Neotia & Smt. Madhu Neotia “We further find that similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. J…

A.C.I.T., Central Circle-4(2), Kolkata vs. Shri Harsh Vardhan Neotia, Kolkata

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

ITA 2143/KOL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & Shri S. S. Godara, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court]

Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…t the jurisdictional High Court i.e. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in ITAT No. 60 of 2014 in GA No. 1736 of 2014 CIT Vs. M/s. Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd. has concurred with the view taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgment in Ranbaxy Laboratories Vs. CIT 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Jet Airways India Ltd. 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) approved the Tribunal’s view on the same which is reproduced as under: 9 I.T.A. Nos. 2143 & 2144/Kol/2019 Shri Harsh Vardhan Neotia & Smt. Madhu Neotia “We further find that similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. J…

Joginder Dahiya, Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 3398/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

…hing survives to scrutinize as far as limited and restricted scope of reopening proceedings are concerned vis-à-vis the income escaping assessment. 9. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT, 336 ITR 136, he submitted that since the AO making any other addition, he should have issued fresh notice. He submitted that in the said decision, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal in holding that the AO had the jurisdiction to reassess issues other than the issues in respect of which proceedings are initiated, but, he was not…

Smt. Raj Bala, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 3396/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

…hing survives to scrutinize as far as limited and restricted scope of reopening proceedings are concerned vis-à-vis the income escaping assessment. 9. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT, 336 ITR 136, he submitted that since the AO making any other addition, he should have issued fresh notice. He submitted that in the said decision, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal in holding that the AO had the jurisdiction to reassess issues other than the issues in respect of which proceedings are initiated, but, he was not…

Kilari Venkata Rosaiah, Guntur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 608/VIZ/2018[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Jun 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.608/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12) Kilari Venkata Rosaiah Vs Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.25-16-180 Income Tax G.T.Road, Amc Yard Circle-1(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Adspk7598L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri S.Ravi Shankar Narayan, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2020

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Ravi Shankar Narayan

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…Moreover, in which case and when Explanation-3 would be applicable has been decided by various High Courts namely, Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs.Jet Airways (I) Ltd., (331 ITR 236); Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT (336 ITR 136), Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Majo Deepak Mehta (344 ITR 641) and Gujarat High Court in case of CIT Vs. Mohamed Juned Dadani. In view of the consistent decision of these High Courts, we are not in a position to take a different view and the learned Tribunal has followed the consistent View of those High Courts. Even, we find t…

Sultan Singh, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward- 4, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8212/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Surat Singh, The Income Tax Officer, Vpo Bhapra, Vs. Ward : 4, Samhalka, Panipat. Panipat – 132 103 [Haryana] Pan : Cqlps9692H Assessment Years : 2010-11 Shri Sultan Singh, The Income Tax Officer, Vpo Bhapra, Vs. Ward : 4, Samhalka, Panipat. Panipat – 132 101 [Haryana] Pan : Cpsps0826K (Appellants) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 54B

…ons of section 147, the AO has no power to make any addition, leaving aside the main issue based on which belief has been entertained that income has escaped assessment. He relied upon the decision of Jet Airways 331 ITR 236 and Ranbaxy laboratory reported in 336 ITR 136 of the honourable Delhi High Court. b. He referred to the observation of the learned assessing officer that the assessee has not filed any return of income for impugned year. He submitted that it is not automatic under the provisions of section 147 to assume jurisdiction in each and every case where return of income has not been filed. He referre…

Surat Singh, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward- 4, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8211/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Surat Singh, The Income Tax Officer, Vpo Bhapra, Vs. Ward : 4, Samhalka, Panipat. Panipat – 132 103 [Haryana] Pan : Cqlps9692H Assessment Years : 2010-11 Shri Sultan Singh, The Income Tax Officer, Vpo Bhapra, Vs. Ward : 4, Samhalka, Panipat. Panipat – 132 101 [Haryana] Pan : Cpsps0826K (Appellants) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 54B

…ons of section 147, the AO has no power to make any addition, leaving aside the main issue based on which belief has been entertained that income has escaped assessment. He relied upon the decision of Jet Airways 331 ITR 236 and Ranbaxy laboratory reported in 336 ITR 136 of the honourable Delhi High Court. b. He referred to the observation of the learned assessing officer that the assessee has not filed any return of income for impugned year. He submitted that it is not automatic under the provisions of section 147 to assume jurisdiction in each and every case where return of income has not been filed. He referre…

Shri Vijay Kumar, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-1, Jaipur

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 584/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2020AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Tanuj Agarwal (Adv.)For Respondent: Miss Chanchal Meena (JCIT)

Section 147Section 148

…where the AO did not assess the income for which he has reopened the assessment and in respect of which the notice u/s 148 was issued. In support, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited vs. CIT 336 ITR 136 and decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. 331 ITR 236 and CIT vs Mohammed Juned Dadani 355 ITR 172. 5 Shri Vijay Kumar vs. ITO 9. Further, on merits, it was submitted by the ld AR that the assessee had sold an immovable property at 300, Gurunanakpura, Jaipur during the year under consideration on 20.01.2010 o…

Shri Pappu Qureshi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-5, Jaipur

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

ITA 314/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2020AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Jain (C.A.)For Respondent: Miss Chanchal Meena (JCIT)

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 314/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke Pappu Qureshi The ITO, Vs. 250-251, Sanjay Nagar, Ward-4(5), Bhata Basti, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABPQ 8488 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri S.C. Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Miss Cha…

Sheela Foam Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4096/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4096/Del/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2005-06 Sheela Foam Ltd., C-55, Preet Vihar, Vikas Marg, New Delhi-110092. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaacs0189B Vs The Dcit, Central Circle-6, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent New Delhi-110016

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr.DR

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

…the main addition does not survive, then there is no merit in the re-opening of assessment proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act. Reliance was placed by the ratios laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs CIT [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2010] 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). The third issue raised by the Ld.AR was that re-opening of assessment was after a period of 4 years and there was no failure on the part of the assessee. Our attention was drawn to the 5 Assessment Year 2005-06 original proceedings u/s 14…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT

ACIT Circle- 15 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S D G Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITO 15 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Limbo Engineering P Ltd., Mumbai

DCIT Central Circle-7(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Wellknown Polysters Ltd., Mumbai

ITO 15 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Limbo Engineering P Ltd., Mumbai

Ins Finance & Investment P Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 12(3), New Delhi

Designarch Infrastructure P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), New Delhi

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT (OSD)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

Anil K Shah (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23 (2)(1), Mumbai

M/S. Chander Nagar Chemicals & Minerals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

M/S. Chander Nagar Chemicals & Minerals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

A.C.I.T., Central Circle-4(2), Kolkata vs. Smt. Madhu Neotia, Kolkata

A.C.I.T., Central Circle-4(2), Kolkata vs. Shri Harsh Vardhan Neotia, Kolkata

Joginder Dahiya, Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Smt. Raj Bala, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Kilari Venkata Rosaiah, Guntur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

Sultan Singh, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward- 4, Panipat

Surat Singh, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward- 4, Panipat

Shri Vijay Kumar, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-1, Jaipur

Shri Pappu Qureshi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-5, Jaipur

Sheela Foam Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi