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

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2282/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…the provisions of section 147 as they stood after the amendment of April 1, 1989, continue to hold the field." This decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court was referred to by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) wherein it was held as follows:- ‘’18. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Limited [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom). We may also note that the heading of section 147 is "income escaping assessment" and that of section 148 "issue of notice where incom…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2281/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…the provisions of section 147 as they stood after the amendment of April 1, 1989, continue to hold the field." This decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court was referred to by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) wherein it was held as follows:- ‘’18. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Limited [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom). We may also note that the heading of section 147 is "income escaping assessment" and that of section 148 "issue of notice where incom…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2280/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…the provisions of section 147 as they stood after the amendment of April 1, 1989, continue to hold the field." This decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court was referred to by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) wherein it was held as follows:- ‘’18. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Limited [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom). We may also note that the heading of section 147 is "income escaping assessment" and that of section 148 "issue of notice where incom…

Shree Gavi Siddeshwara Minerals, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Inocme Tax Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 514/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 263

…ends to do so, a fresh notice under s. 148 would be necessary, the legality of which would be tested in the event of a challenge by the assessee." The assessee has relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs CIT - 336 ITR 136 (PBI - I page 87, relevant page 95) wherein the Court concurring with the Jet Airways cited supra has held as under: " 21. In view of our above discussions, the Tribunal was right 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 so justified when the…

Shree Gavi Siddeshwara Minerals, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Inocme Tax Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 513/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 263

…ends to do so, a fresh notice under s. 148 would be necessary, the legality of which would be tested in the event of a challenge by the assessee." The assessee has relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs CIT - 336 ITR 136 (PBI - I page 87, relevant page 95) wherein the Court concurring with the Jet Airways cited supra has held as under: " 21. In view of our above discussions, the Tribunal was right 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 so justified when the…

Shree Gavi Siddeshwara Minerals, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Inocme Tax Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 512/BANG/2019[202-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 263

…ends to do so, a fresh notice under s. 148 would be necessary, the legality of which would be tested in the event of a challenge by the assessee." The assessee has relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs CIT - 336 ITR 136 (PBI - I page 87, relevant page 95) wherein the Court concurring with the Jet Airways cited supra has held as under: " 21. In view of our above discussions, the Tribunal was right 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 so justified when the…

Shree Gavi Siddeshwara Minerals, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Inocme Tax Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 511/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 263

…ends to do so, a fresh notice under s. 148 would be necessary, the legality of which would be tested in the event of a challenge by the assessee." The assessee has relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs CIT - 336 ITR 136 (PBI - I page 87, relevant page 95) wherein the Court concurring with the Jet Airways cited supra has held as under: " 21. In view of our above discussions, the Tribunal was right 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 so justified when the…

M/S Shree Gavi Siddeshwara Minerals, Bangalore vs. The Commissione of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

ITA 863/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 263

…ends to do so, a fresh notice under s. 148 would be necessary, the legality of which would be tested in the event of a challenge by the assessee." The assessee has relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs CIT - 336 ITR 136 (PBI - I page 87, relevant page 95) wherein the Court concurring with the Jet Airways cited supra has held as under: " 21. In view of our above discussions, the Tribunal was right 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 so justified when the…

Echjay Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 45, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed

ITA 5245/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Assessment Year :2006-07) Assessment Year :2010-11) Assessment Year :2011-12) Assessment Year :2012-13) Assessment Year :2013-14) Assessment Year :2014-15) Assessment Year :2010-11) & Assessment Year :2012-13) M/S. Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd. M/S. Echjay Industries Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle- 83, Bajaj Bhavan 45,/Dy.Commissioner Of Nariman Point Income Tax-Circle 8(2) Mumbai – 400 023 Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1157B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.R. RaoFor Respondent: Shri Sachchidanand Dube
Section 143(3)Section 147

…eir Lordships further observed that the belief should be formed at the time of recording of reasons itself and not thereafter on the issues mentioned in the reasons. 2.5. Similar views were taken in the following cases :- a) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs CIT – 336 ITR 136 (Del) b) CIT VS INFINITY INFOTECH PARKS LTD in ITAT No. 60 of 2014 G.A.No. 1736 of 2014 dated 10.9.2014 (Calcutta HC) c) Martech Peripherals P Ltd vs DCIT and Another reported in (2017) 394 ITR 733 (Mad) dated 4.4.2017 2.6. We also find the Special Leave Petition preferred by the revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs La…

DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Dotex Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objections are also dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1602/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ions’ for which no reasons were recorded. In support of this proposition the Ld. AR relied on the following judicial decisions and pleaded that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) quashing the impugned reassessment order be upheld. - Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd Vs CIT (336 ITR 136) (Del HC) - CIT Vs Ram Singh (306 ITR 343) (Raj HC) - CIT Vs Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd (GA No. 1736 of 2014) (Cal HC) - CIT Vs Software Consultants (341 ITR 240) (Del HC) - Indu Arts Vs ACIT (88 taxmann.com 182) (ITAT Delhi) - ShriMotilal Jain Vs ITO (ITA No. 1986 to 1988/Kol/2016) 8. In support of the cross objections and the additional groun…

Smt. Asha Yadav, Sagar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 89/JAB/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur03 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Asha Yadav V. Principal C.I.T.-1 Katra Ward, Bina Jabalpur Sagar Tan/Pan:Abzpu9749E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 04 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Dated 26/3/2018 Passed By The Ld. Pr. C.I.T., Jabalpur U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, Taking The Following Grounds: 1. That, The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit-1, Jabalpur U/S 263 Dated 26.03.2018 Is Arbitrary, Erroneous & Contrary To The Facts & Records Of The Assessment, Hence Liable To Be Set Aside. 2. That, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Conclusion Of Pr. Cit-1, Jabalpur Regarding Contravention Of Provision U/S 40 A (3) Of The Act Is Erroneous. 3. That, On The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, The Conclusion Of Pr. Cit-1, Jabalpur Regarding Applicability Of Section 194 C Of The Act Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Erroneous. 4. That, The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Served To The Assessee On 09.04.2018, Hence The Order Is Clearly Barred By Limitation. 5. That, While Passing The Order U/S 263 No Reasonable & Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard Is Provided To The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R
Section 147Section 194Section 263Section 40

…s been made, representing disallowance made out of development charges, amounting to Rs.80,000/-, is void ab-initio, in the light of the following decisions: 1. C.I.T. vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 311 ITR 236. 2. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. C.I.T. [2011] 336 ITR 136. 6. It is the further submission on behalf of the assessee that since the assessment order itself is thus void ab-initio, no proceedings with reference thereto could have been initiated and that the resulting impugned order passed u/s. 263 of the Act is also null and void. 7. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, has placed strong reliance on the impu…

The Harsiddhi Co.Op. Credit Society Ltd., Mahisagar vs. The ITO, Lunawad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1862/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1862/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Harsiddhi Co-Op. Credit Ito, Lunawada. Society Ltd., Tower Road Vs At & O : Santrampur 389 260 Dist: Mahisagar, Gujarat Pan : Aabat 3395 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar Revenue By : Shri T.C.Meena, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26/03/2019

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri T.C.Meena, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 143Section 147Section 148

…no addition qua that issue has been made. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court after putting reliance upon the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways I Ltd., 331 ITR 236 and the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT, 336 ITR 136 has held that if no addition was made to the income of the assessee on the issue for which assessment was reopened then any income found to have been escaped from the assessment during the re- assessment proceedings on other issues cannot be added. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon the orders of the Revenue authorities. 3. We have duly co…

Chetan Ramniklal Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 5(4), Mumbai

ITA 3751/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri N. K. Pradhanshri Chetan Ramniklal Shah, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax 5Th Floor, Urmi Building, Central Circle-5(4) Vs. 19Th Floor, R. No. 1927 Air India Bldg 65, A.G. Road, Worli Sea Face, Mumbai-4000025 Mumbai. Pan – Aajps7227C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ving regard to the plenitude of its legislative powers to do so, the provisions of section 147 as they stood after the amendment of April 1, 1989, continue to hold the field.” 13. In case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 336 ITR 136 wherein Delhi High Court had taken a similar view. It was observed as under: “18. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Limited (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom). We may also note that the heading of section 147 is income escaping assessment and that of section…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hopewin Admark & Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 256/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Ostwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…er section 143 (3)/147, the AO can travel beyond the subject matter of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment? 11. This issue has already been dealt with by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case cited as Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT – (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) by returning the following findings:- “Held, that section 148 was supplementary and complementary to section 147. Sub-section (2) of section 148 mandates reasons for issuance of notice by the Assessing Officer and sub-section (1) mandates service of notice to the assessee before the Assessing Officer proceeds to assess, reassess or recom…

M/S. Hopewin Admark & Consultancy Services (Pvt.) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6634/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Ostwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…er section 143 (3)/147, the AO can travel beyond the subject matter of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment? 11. This issue has already been dealt with by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case cited as Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT – (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) by returning the following findings:- “Held, that section 148 was supplementary and complementary to section 147. Sub-section (2) of section 148 mandates reasons for issuance of notice by the Assessing Officer and sub-section (1) mandates service of notice to the assessee before the Assessing Officer proceeds to assess, reassess or recom…

Harish Mittal, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 5313/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: SH. R.K. MALHOTRA, ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SH. S.L. ANURAGI, SR. DR
Section 127(1)Section 147Section 234A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 HARISH MITTAL, VS. ITO, WARD 1(3), C/O ADVOCATE, R.K. MALHOTRA, FARIDABAD 5D/8A, RAILWAY ROAD, NIIT FARIDABAD HARYANA – 121001 (PAN: AASPM2262) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : SH. R.K. MALHOTRA, ADVOCATE Department by : SH. S.L. ANURAGI, SR. DR. ORDER This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 29.6.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A), Faridabad relating to assessment year 2008-09. The assessee has raised the following grounds. 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA…

Dipti Mehta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 43(2), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2031/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2009-10 Dipti Mehta Income Tax Officer बनाम / 161/1 M.G. Road, Ground Ward-45(2), 3, Govt. V/S. Floor, Kokata-700007 Place,Kolkata-101 [Pan No.Aespm 0353 A] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 23-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 30-01-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata’S Order Dated 02.07.2018 Passed In Case No. 22/Cit(A)-13/W-45(2)/Kol/2015-16 Involving Proceedings U/S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. I Come To Former Issue Of Validity Of Re-Opening In Question. This Assessee Had Filed Her Return For The Impugned Assessment Year On 28.07.2009 Declaring Taxable Income Of ₹3,99,390/-. The Same Stood Summarily Processed. The Assessing Officer Thereafter Formed Reasons To Believe As Per The Investigation Wing’S Report That The Assessee Had Taken A Loss Entry From M/S Mahasagar Group. This Alleged Loss Entry Involved An Amount Of ₹2,71,500/-. The Assessing Officer Issued Sec. 148 Notice Dated 03.02.2014. The Assessee In Turn Requested To Treat Her Original Return As The One Filed In Furtherance To Sec. 148 Proceedings. The Assessing Officer Thereafter Completed Re- Assessment On 28.02.2015 Disallowing The Sum In Question Of ₹28,891/- U/S 14A R.W.S. Rule 8D(2) In The Nature Of Direct & Administrative Expenditure To The Tune Of

Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…question of ₹28,891/- only during the course of re-assessment (supra). Hon'ble Mumbai high court’s decision in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom)., Ranbaxy Laboratories vs. CIT (2011) 366 ITR 136 (Del) and ACIT vs. Major Deepak Mehta (2012) 336 ITR 136 (Chhattisgarh) hold that such a re-assessments not making any addition qua the specified reasons of re-opening but on other issues are not sustainable. I therefore quash the impugned re-assessment for this sole reason. 3. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 30/01/2019 (S.S. Godara) Judicial Member Kolkata, *Dkp/S…

Pravin Ambalal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3138/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3138/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-12

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…e submitted that if any addition was not made on an issue for which assessment was reopened, then no other issue can be adjudicated by the AO. He also made reference to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT, 336 ITR 136 and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., 195 taxmann 177 (Bom). On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon the orders of the Revenue authorities. 10. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. A perusal of the reasons extracted (supra) would indicate that the ld.AO…

Rita Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-70(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5966/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 80C

…to the reasons recorded as no addition/ disallowance is made in the assessment order based upon the reasons recorded. 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred grossly and acted in defiance of Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories vs. CIT; 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) and Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Sh. Ram Singh; 306 ITR 343 (Rajasthan) whereby the issue as raised in ground no. 2.2 herein is squarely covered. 2.4 That reasons recorded are based upon presumption and guess work and these are not more than reason to suspect and thus are not valid in the eyes of law as no…

The ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat vs. Shri Shakti G. Karnawat, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1504/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Anchaliya, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Smitha V. Nair, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 148

…om these concerns which according to him were bogus. Thus, on the strength of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., 331 ITR 236, Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s decision in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT, 336 ITR 136 and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court reported in 355 ITR 172 in the case of CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani, he contended that if no addition was being made on the basis of an issue, for which assessment was reopened, no addition on other issue can be made. He further contended that there was no information available with the AO for reopeni…