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)

Juliet Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 5452/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…

Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle I(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2028/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Nrs Ganesan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 2027 & 2028/Chny/2017 Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals(P) Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-I(3), Chennai [Pan: Aaacc1356 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundararaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 143(3)

…rt from the following decisions of various High Courts in this regard :- a) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Jet Airways Ltd reported in 331 ITR 236 (Bom) . b) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs CIT reported in 336 ITR 136 (Del) . c) Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT VS Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd in ITAT No. 60 of 2014 G.A.No. 1736 of 2014 dated 10.9.2014. d) Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Martech Peripherals P Ltd vs DCIT and Another reported in (2017) 394 ITR 733 (Mad) dated 4.4.2017 6.4. Even on merits, from the facts narrated a…

Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle I(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2027/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Nrs Ganesan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 2027 & 2028/Chny/2017 Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals(P) Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-I(3), Chennai [Pan: Aaacc1356 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundararaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 143(3)

…rt from the following decisions of various High Courts in this regard :- a) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Jet Airways Ltd reported in 331 ITR 236 (Bom) . b) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs CIT reported in 336 ITR 136 (Del) . c) Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT VS Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd in ITAT No. 60 of 2014 G.A.No. 1736 of 2014 dated 10.9.2014. d) Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Martech Peripherals P Ltd vs DCIT and Another reported in (2017) 394 ITR 733 (Mad) dated 4.4.2017 6.4. Even on merits, from the facts narrated a…

Shri Rishi Kumar Gupta, Agra vs. CIT Circle 1, Agra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 299/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 4Section 54F

…ed. This is an Assessment Year: 2011-12 accepted rule of construction recognized by the courts is several to is decision. For this purpose, he relied on the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) 2. Ranbaxy Lab Ltd. vs. CIT 336 ITR 136 (Del.) 9. The ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and contending that once the validity of the notice is survived the assessment is open to make addition on any account for which no reasons have been recorded. The Explanation-3 to Section 147 is inserted to provide that AO may assess or reassess income in respect of any issue w…

Krishan Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 1, Narnaul

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

ITA 3985/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandakrishan Kumar Ito C/P Kapil Goel, Adv. Ward No. 1 F-26/124, Sector-7 Narnaul Vs Rohini, New Delhi-110085 Gir/Pan: Bxrpk4146E अपीलाथ"/(Applicant) ""यथ"/(Respondent)

For Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 54Section 54B

…Thus, nothing has been mentioned in the assessment order for which the assessment was reopened and some other addition has been made. Therefore, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., vs CIT, reported in 336 ITR 136, such addition is not permissible and the assessment order has to be quashed. 7.1. Referring to the decision of the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of Mahavir Prasad vs ITO, ITA no. 924/Del/2015, order dated 09.10.2017, for the assessment year 2007-08, he submitted that under identical facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has quashed the re-…

ITO, Bangalore vs. Sri. S, Devraj Pande, Bangalore

In the result, the C. O. filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 822/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sukumar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…s were not disposed off by the AO by a separate speaking order, the reassessment order is bad in law. For holding so, learned CIT (A) has followed a judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratory limited vs. CIT as reported in 336 ITR 136. The question of law in this case was as under:- "Whether on facts the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the AO had jurisdiction to reassess issues other than the issues in respect of which proceedings were initiated especially when the reasons for the latter ceased to survive ?" 11. Hence, it is seen that reliance placed by CIT (A) on t…

ITO, Bangalore vs. Sri. S, Devraj Pande, Bangalore

In the result, the C. O. filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 821/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sukumar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…s were not disposed off by the AO by a separate speaking order, the reassessment order is bad in law. For holding so, learned CIT (A) has followed a judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratory limited vs. CIT as reported in 336 ITR 136. The question of law in this case was as under:- "Whether on facts the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the AO had jurisdiction to reassess issues other than the issues in respect of which proceedings were initiated especially when the reasons for the latter ceased to survive ?" 11. Hence, it is seen that reliance placed by CIT (A) on t…

ITO, Bangalore vs. Sri. S, Devraj Pande, Bangalore

In the result, the C. O. filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 820/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sukumar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…s were not disposed off by the AO by a separate speaking order, the reassessment order is bad in law. For holding so, learned CIT (A) has followed a judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratory limited vs. CIT as reported in 336 ITR 136. The question of law in this case was as under:- "Whether on facts the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the AO had jurisdiction to reassess issues other than the issues in respect of which proceedings were initiated especially when the reasons for the latter ceased to survive ?" 11. Hence, it is seen that reliance placed by CIT (A) on t…

ITO, Bangalore vs. Sri. S. Devraj Pande, Bangalore

In the result, the C. O. filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1107/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sukumar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…s were not disposed off by the AO by a separate speaking order, the reassessment order is bad in law. For holding so, learned CIT (A) has followed a judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratory limited vs. CIT as reported in 336 ITR 136. The question of law in this case was as under:- "Whether on facts the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the AO had jurisdiction to reassess issues other than the issues in respect of which proceedings were initiated especially when the reasons for the latter ceased to survive ?" 11. Hence, it is seen that reliance placed by CIT (A) on t…

S.P. Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 3023/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S S.P. Builders Dcit 12(2) 309, Gundecha Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, N. M. Road, Fort, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai – 400 023. Pan: Aabfs0338Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri V.Justin (DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 253Section 254(1)Section 37Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s S.P. Builders DCIT 12(2) 309, Gundecha Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, N. M. Road, Fort, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai – 400 023. PAN: AABFS0338Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punamiya (AR) Revenue by : Shri V.Justin (DR) Date of hearing : 02.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 08.11.2017 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal filed by the assessee u/s.253 of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”) is…

M/S Prosperous Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2648/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2006-07 Prosperous Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit, 17-B, Mgf House, Delhi-7, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aadcp4389H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Jain, Adv. Respondent By : Smt. Pramita Tripathy, Cit Dr

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Pramita Tripathy, CIT DR

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…imed any deduction for the land purchased during the year, the question of disallowance could not arise. 3.1 The Ld. Sr. Advocate placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd versus CIT reported in 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) for the proposition that Explanation 3 to section 147 was not applicable where no disallowance had been made in the reassessment order on the issue raised in the reasons recorded. The Ld. Sr. Advocate also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT I.T.A. No. 2648/Del/2016 Assessment year 2006-07 v…

Amricon Agrovet Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 756/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Amrit Feeds Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5571 D] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Amrit Hatcheries Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5987 A] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801BSection 92C

…led. In such exceptional situations, the AO may refer the matter to the TPO after providing an opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer.” 11. Ld. DR has also relied on the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited Vs. CIT 345 ITR 193 (Del) wherein it was held as under:- “It is not in dispute that section 92CA enables the Assessing Officer to refer computation of arm's length price in relation to an international transaction, under section 92C, when the Assessing Officer considers it necessary or expedient to do so. Thus, discretion lies with the Assessing Officer. Having rega…

Amricon Agrovet Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 755/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Amrit Feeds Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5571 D] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Amrit Hatcheries Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5987 A] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801BSection 92C

…led. In such exceptional situations, the AO may refer the matter to the TPO after providing an opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer.” 11. Ld. DR has also relied on the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited Vs. CIT 345 ITR 193 (Del) wherein it was held as under:- “It is not in dispute that section 92CA enables the Assessing Officer to refer computation of arm's length price in relation to an international transaction, under section 92C, when the Assessing Officer considers it necessary or expedient to do so. Thus, discretion lies with the Assessing Officer. Having rega…

Amrit Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 754/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Amrit Feeds Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5571 D] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Amrit Hatcheries Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5987 A] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801BSection 92C

…led. In such exceptional situations, the AO may refer the matter to the TPO after providing an opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer.” 11. Ld. DR has also relied on the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited Vs. CIT 345 ITR 193 (Del) wherein it was held as under:- “It is not in dispute that section 92CA enables the Assessing Officer to refer computation of arm's length price in relation to an international transaction, under section 92C, when the Assessing Officer considers it necessary or expedient to do so. Thus, discretion lies with the Assessing Officer. Having rega…

Amrit Feeds Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 753/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Amrit Feeds Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5571 D] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Amrit Hatcheries Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5987 A] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801BSection 92C

…led. In such exceptional situations, the AO may refer the matter to the TPO after providing an opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer.” 11. Ld. DR has also relied on the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited Vs. CIT 345 ITR 193 (Del) wherein it was held as under:- “It is not in dispute that section 92CA enables the Assessing Officer to refer computation of arm's length price in relation to an international transaction, under section 92C, when the Assessing Officer considers it necessary or expedient to do so. Thus, discretion lies with the Assessing Officer. Having rega…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Mrs Jagjit Kaur, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5994/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR

Section 148

…have been made on the reasons recorded as held in paragraph 09,10,11 above, addition made on other issues on which no reasons were recorded, cannot be sustained. Again the reliance is placed on Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in case of Ranbaxy reported in 336 ITR 136 which is followed by many other High Court. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and assesse’s cross objection and rule 27 application is allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the cross objection of the assessee is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 16.10.2017.…

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6755/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.K.Bansal & Sh. Amit Shuklaacit, Vs Alka Dass, Circle-50(1), 383-384, Upper Ground Floor, New Delhi. New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi-110060. Pan-Aetpd7635P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 148

…tax authorities below, we noted that the CIT(A) held 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 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…

Mita Saha (Khan), Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward -1(4) Hooghly, Hooghly

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 339/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…resent appeal. We note that the jurisdictional High Court in ITAT No. 60 of 2014 in GA No. 1736 of 2014 CIT Vs. M/s. Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd. has taken similar view after taking note of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgment in Ranbaxy Laboratories Vs. CIT 336 ITR 136 and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Jet Airways India Ltd. 331 ITR 236 approved the Tribunal’s view on the same which is reproduced as under: “We further find that similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways India Ltd. (supra) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratorie…

Lamba Bricks Pvt. Ltd., Bhiwani vs. ACIT, Bhiwani

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 708/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri N.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Bedobani, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…not open to the AO to make additions on some other ground such as the disallowance of the deduction under section 36(1) (viia) without first issuing a note under section 148.” 10. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 336 ITR 136 similarly held that “items of income said to have escaped assessment on which reassessment proposed not added but other deductions reduced not permissible”. 11. Considering the above discussion, in the light of the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment and in the light of above Lamba Bricks Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT decisions, it is clear th…

Lamba Bricks Pvt. Ltd., Bhiwani vs. ACIT, Bhiwani

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 707/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri N.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Bedobani, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…not open to the AO to make additions on some other ground such as the disallowance of the deduction under section 36(1) (viia) without first issuing a note under section 148.” 10. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 336 ITR 136 similarly held that “items of income said to have escaped assessment on which reassessment proposed not added but other deductions reduced not permissible”. 11. Considering the above discussion, in the light of the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment and in the light of above Lamba Bricks Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT decisions, it is clear th…

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

Juliet Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(3), Mumbai

Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle I(3), Chennai

Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle I(3), Chennai

Shri Rishi Kumar Gupta, Agra vs. CIT Circle 1, Agra

Krishan Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 1, Narnaul

ITO, Bangalore vs. Sri. S, Devraj Pande, Bangalore

ITO, Bangalore vs. Sri. S, Devraj Pande, Bangalore

ITO, Bangalore vs. Sri. S, Devraj Pande, Bangalore

ITO, Bangalore vs. Sri. S. Devraj Pande, Bangalore

S.P. Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(3), Mumbai

M/S Prosperous Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, New Delhi

Amricon Agrovet Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata

Amricon Agrovet Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata

Amrit Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata

Amrit Feeds Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Mrs Jagjit Kaur, New Delhi

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

Mita Saha (Khan), Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward -1(4) Hooghly, Hooghly

Lamba Bricks Pvt. Ltd., Bhiwani vs. ACIT, Bhiwani

Lamba Bricks Pvt. Ltd., Bhiwani vs. ACIT, Bhiwani