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

Shri Shakti G. Karnawat, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 1381/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…

Aspect Software Inc., Usa vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand partly

ITA 1453/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2012-13 Ay: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall, Int. Tax
Section 143(2)Section 9

…e matter to the TPO wherever there is no existing reference either in the case of Aspect US or Aspect India. The TPO shall determine ALP and attribute the profits accordingly. In this regard, we place reliance in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT (345 ITR 193, Del Assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 HC) wherein the validity of the instruction no.3 dt.25-5- 2003 issued by the CBDT u/s 119 of the Income Tax Act was upheld and the reference to TPO for determination of ALP was considered mandatory.” 7.6.1 It has also been submitted that this order was challenged by the Department before the Hon’ble Delhi…

Aspect Software Inc., Usa vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand partly

ITA 1452/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2012-13 Ay: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall, Int. Tax
Section 143(2)Section 9

…e matter to the TPO wherever there is no existing reference either in the case of Aspect US or Aspect India. The TPO shall determine ALP and attribute the profits accordingly. In this regard, we place reliance in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT (345 ITR 193, Del Assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 HC) wherein the validity of the instruction no.3 dt.25-5- 2003 issued by the CBDT u/s 119 of the Income Tax Act was upheld and the reference to TPO for determination of ALP was considered mandatory.” 7.6.1 It has also been submitted that this order was challenged by the Department before the Hon’ble Delhi…

DCIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Motors Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 3476/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)

…ming the disallowance made by the AO in respect of post retirement benefit scheme under section 43B (b) of the Act. In claiming the said deduction, we have relied upon the decision of Honourable Delhi high Court in the case of CIT vs Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 334 ITR 341 (Del.) 3. Disallowance of Expenses of Rs. 14,98,5947- under provisions of section 4Q(ia) of the Income Tax Act due to non deduction of TDS M/s. Tata Motors Finance Ltd., The CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 14,98,5947- made by the AO in respect of expenses under provisions of section 40(ia) of the Act. T…

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int. Tax)

ITA/969/2018HC Delhi04 Sept 2018

Bench: The Tribunal On The Questions Of Permanent Establishment In India & Attribution Of Income Has Not Challenged The Said Findings.

Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…ITA No.969/2018 Page 1 of 11 $~46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 969/2018 & CM Nos.35890-91/2018 Date of decision : 4th September, 2018 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Bhuwan Dhoopar, Advocate versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT. TAX) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL): The afore-captioned appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax…

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Int. Tax)

ITA/919/2018HC Delhi27 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…ITA 916/2018 & connected Page 1 of 14 $~44 to 48 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 916/2018 Date of decision: 27th August, 2018. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Himanshu Sinha and Mr. Bhuwan Dhoopar, Advocates. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT. TAX), ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 917/2018 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.…

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int. Tax)

ITA/918/2018HC Delhi27 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…ITA 916/2018 & connected Page 1 of 14 $~44 to 48 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 916/2018 Date of decision: 27th August, 2018. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Himanshu Sinha and Mr. Bhuwan Dhoopar, Advocates. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT. TAX), ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 917/2018 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.…

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int. Tax)

ITA/917/2018HC Delhi27 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…ITA 916/2018 & connected Page 1 of 14 $~44 to 48 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 916/2018 Date of decision: 27th August, 2018. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Himanshu Sinha and Mr. Bhuwan Dhoopar, Advocates. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT. TAX), ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 917/2018 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.…

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int. Tax)

ITA/920/2018HC Delhi27 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…ITA 916/2018 & connected Page 1 of 14 $~44 to 48 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 916/2018 Date of decision: 27th August, 2018. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Himanshu Sinha and Mr. Bhuwan Dhoopar, Advocates. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT. TAX), ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 917/2018 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.…

Swati Verma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 3(4), Noida

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 42/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…the A.O. Therefore, it is a case of non-application of mind by the A.O. and the reasons for reopening of the assessment does not exist. He has relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and relied upon Order of ITAT, Delhi SMC-2-Bench, Delhi in the case of Smt. Rajni, Vill. Kanharwas, Distt. Rewari vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rewari in ITA.No.854/Del./2016 and ITA.No.855/ Del./2016 Dated 06.01.2017. Copies of the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment are filed at page-59 of the paper book. He has, therefore, submitted…

Dhara Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2213/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri T.S. Kapooray: 2012-13 Dhara Singh Ito, Ward 1(2), C/O Rupinder Kumar Vs. Ghaziabad Aggarwal, Uttar Pradesh Advocate, Ab-1A/22, Sector-51, Noida -201301 (Pan: Czjps0155A) (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. V.K. Jiwani, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234CSection 48Section 50CSection 54F

…osition no valid assessment could be framed. It was submitted that there was no “reasons to believe” that income of the assessee had escaped assessment u/s 147 of the Act for the instant assessment year. Reliance was also placed on the following judgments: i) 336 ITR 136 (Del) M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT ii) 331 ITR 236 (Bom)CIT v. M/s Jet Airways (I) Ltd. iii) 354 ITR 549 (Del) CIT v. Cheil Communication India (P) Ltd. iv) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) CIT v. Shri Ram Sing v) 341 ITR 240 (Del) CIT v. Software Consultants vi) 355 ITR 172 (Guj) CIT v. Mohmed Juned Dadani vii) 394 ITR 733 (Mad Martech Peripherals (P)…

DCIT, Chennai vs. The Official Liquidator M/S. Mascon Global Ltd. (in Liquidation), Chennai

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 634/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘डी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos. 1139/Chny/2008, 1135 & 1136/Chny/2010, 632, 633 & 634/Chny/2017 Assessment Years: 2003-04, 04-05, 05-06, 03-04, 04-05 & 2009-10 & C.O. No. 69/Chny/2010[In I.T.A. No. 1135Chny/2010] The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner The Official Liquidator, of Income Tax, Vs. M/s. Mascon Global Ltd. [in liquidation], Company Circle IV(1), High Court of Madr…

DCIT, Chennai vs. The Official Liquidator M/S. Mascon Global Ltd. (in Liquidation), Chennai

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 633/CHNY/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘डी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos. 1139/Chny/2008, 1135 & 1136/Chny/2010, 632, 633 & 634/Chny/2017 Assessment Years: 2003-04, 04-05, 05-06, 03-04, 04-05 & 2009-10 & C.O. No. 69/Chny/2010[In I.T.A. No. 1135Chny/2010] The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner The Official Liquidator, of Income Tax, Vs. M/s. Mascon Global Ltd. [in liquidation], Company Circle IV(1), High Court of Madr…

DCIT, Chennai vs. The Official Liquidator M/S. Mascon Global Ltd. (in Liquidation), Chennai

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 632/CHNY/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘डी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos. 1139/Chny/2008, 1135 & 1136/Chny/2010, 632, 633 & 634/Chny/2017 Assessment Years: 2003-04, 04-05, 05-06, 03-04, 04-05 & 2009-10 & C.O. No. 69/Chny/2010[In I.T.A. No. 1135Chny/2010] The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner The Official Liquidator, of Income Tax, Vs. M/s. Mascon Global Ltd. [in liquidation], Company Circle IV(1), High Court of Madr…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Mascon Global Ltd., Chennai

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1139/CHNY/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘डी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos. 1139/Chny/2008, 1135 & 1136/Chny/2010, 632, 633 & 634/Chny/2017 Assessment Years: 2003-04, 04-05, 05-06, 03-04, 04-05 & 2009-10 & C.O. No. 69/Chny/2010[In I.T.A. No. 1135Chny/2010] The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner The Official Liquidator, of Income Tax, Vs. M/s. Mascon Global Ltd. [in liquidation], Company Circle IV(1), High Court of Madr…

Ajay Kumar Goyal, Hapur vs. ITO, Ward- 3(4), Hapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 557/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Malik (Adv .)For Respondent: Sh. B.R. Mishra (Sr. DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…reopened. He has drawn our attention to the copy of reasons recorded available on page 3 of the Paper Book. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 334 ITR 341 [2011], Wherein it is held that if the addition based on the reasons recorded does not survive, the proceedings under section 147 cannot withstand. 6. On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. In the case of Ranbaxy laboratories…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Alka Dass, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands

ITA 6756/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Rastogi, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 148

…ld the assessment order to be null & void. In view of the Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT vs Living Media India Ltd. 359 ITR 106 (2013) [Del.] and Ranbaxy 4 ITA.No.6756/Del./2014 Smt. Alka Dass, New Delhi. Laboratories Ltd. vs CIT in 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) [2011] by observing as under:- 6.1. “The ACIT, Range-IV, Lucknow after getting satisfied with the appellant's contention that she had not jurisdiction over the appellant, transferred the reassessment proceedings. This action of the ACIT, Range-IV, Lucknow basically strengthens the appellant's contention that the assessment proceedings…

General Computer Services International, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 31, Mumbai

ITA 2459/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anant N. Pai, A.RFor Respondent: Sh. Jayant Kumar, CIT, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

…under Sec. 92CA(4) of the Act. The ld. D.R in support of his contention that it was mandatory on the part of the A.O to have made a reference to the TPO, relied on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 345 ITR 193 (Del), wherein the High Court has held that by virtue of CBDT Instruction No. 3, dt. 25th May, 2003, it is mandatory on the part of AO to make reference to TPO under s. 92CA(4) wherever the aggregate value of international transaction exceeds Rs. 5 crores. The ld. D.R further submitted that if the A.O in discharge of the statutory obligation so c…

Venu Gopal Karavadi, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-4(2), Hyderabad

In the result appeal filed by Assessee is allowed

ITA 202/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiahassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Venu Gopal Karavadi, Vs. Ito, Hyderabad. Ward – 4(2), Hyderabad. Pan- Bdbpk1736J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.A Sai Prasad Shri B. Suresh Babu Revenue By : Date Of Hearing : 25-04-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-04-2018 Order Per Shri B. Ramakotaiah, Am: This Is An Appeal By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Hyderabad Dated 06.10.2016. Apart From The Issues Originally Contested In Appeal I.E Addition U/S Sec. 68 Of The It Act Of Two Deposits Of Rs. 4.45 Lakhs & Rs. 7.5 Laksh In Two Banks, Assessee Also Raised The Additional Grounds That Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 147 Of The It Act Ceased To Survive As The Officer Has Not Made Any Additions On The Issue On Which The Reasons For Reopening Are Based, Hence, A.O Is Not Justified In Making The Addition On Other Issues. We Have Heard Ld. Counsel & Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.A Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 50CSection 54Section 68

…ombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways (Supra), the assessment made by the AO u/s. 143(3) w.r.t. 147 of the IT Act with reference to other issues alone is without jurisdiction. Reliance can also be placed in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Vs. CIT 336 ITR 136 (Delhi), in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Major Deepak Mehta [344 ITR 641] (Chhattisgarh). 8.3. The AO having been satisfied that there is no discrepancy in gross turnovers, he could have dropped proceedings. The law on the issue is very clear. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT-III Vs. Swarna Andhra I…

ITO 6(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Juliet Industries Ltd. (Formerly Known As Juliet Products Ltd.), Mumbai

ITA 5975/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5452/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Juliet Industries Limited Income Tax Officer 6(3)(3) Room No. 524, 5Th Floor A-313 बनाम/ Shah & Nayar Industrial Estate Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Lower Parel M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacj-6924-H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5975/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer 6(3)(3) Juliet Industries Limited Room No. 524, 5Th Floor A-313 बनाम/ Aaykar Bhawan Shah & Nayar Industrial Estate Vs. M.K.Road Lower Parel Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacj-6924-H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Vijay Mehta, Ld.ARFor Respondent: V.Vidhyadhar, Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…and answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (emphasis, being supplied by us) The observation of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT [2011 336 ITR 136] which are relevant to issue in hand are as under:- 18. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Jaganmohan Rao (supra) [sic—Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (supra)]. We may also note that the heading of s. 147 is "Income escaping assessment" and that of s. 148 "Issue of notice where income es…