Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT

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

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

…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…

M/S Indu Arts, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2006-07 Indu Arts, Vs. Acit, A-292, Shastri Nagar, Circle 19(1), Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaafi2137E

…otice are non-existent. That is why, it has been held in several cases that no `other addition’ can be made ITA No.6611/Del/2016 7 unless the `foundational addition’ is made. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. VS. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) has held that the AO has jurisdiction to reassess income other than the income in respect of which proceedings under s. 147 were initiated but he is not justified in doing so when the very reasons for initiation of those proceedings ceased to survive. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom),…

Pr. Commisssioner of Income Tax-06 vs. National Fertilizer Limited

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

…and the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 88 (Del) and upheld the order ofthe CIT (A). 7. The Court's attention is drawn by learned counsel for the Assessee to the decision in CIT v Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 341 (Del). The ratio of the above decision is that where there are actuarial reports supporting the provision to meet a contingent liability, it cannot be gone behindby the Assessing Officer (AO) unless it is shown to be not based on any scientific or know financial principles. 8. It is sought to be urged by learned counsel for the Revenue that only…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 vs. National Fertilizers Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

…and the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 88 (Del) and upheld the order ofthe CIT (A). 7. The Court's attention is drawn by learned counsel for the Assessee to the decision in CIT v Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 341 (Del). The ratio of the above decision is that where there are actuarial reports supporting the provision to meet a contingent liability, it cannot be gone behindby the Assessing Officer (AO) unless it is shown to be not based on any scientific or know financial principles. 8. It is sought to be urged by learned counsel for the Revenue that only…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 vs. National Fertilizers Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

…and the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 88 (Del) and upheld the order ofthe CIT (A). 7. The Court's attention is drawn by learned counsel for the Assessee to the decision in CIT v Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 341 (Del). The ratio of the above decision is that where there are actuarial reports supporting the provision to meet a contingent liability, it cannot be gone behindby the Assessing Officer (AO) unless it is shown to be not based on any scientific or know financial principles. 8. It is sought to be urged by learned counsel for the Revenue that only…

Jindal Pipes Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Jindal Pipes Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.5, 2Nd Floor, Circle 4(1), Pusa Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacj2055K)

…as placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble reported in 331 ITR 236 (Bombay). Ld. AR further submitted that this view of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was also followed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. reported in 336 ITR 136 (Del). 4. Learned Departmental Representative, in response, submitted that the Assessing Officer had dealt with the objections raised by the assessee against the reopening and, therefore, the assessee had no cause for grievance. It was also submitted that the Assessing Officer had given adequate opportunity to the assessee and due process had…

Solar Turbines International Co., Singapore vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 5186/Del/2012 (Assessment Year 2004-05) Solar Turbiness International Co. ACIT, 14, Tractor Road International Taxation, Vs. Singapore New Delhi GIR/PAN: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Girish Dave, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT DR Date of hearing : 13.02.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 16.03.2017 ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM: The present appeal has been filed by assessee against 1. order dated 01.08.2012 passed by Ld. DIT (Interna…

Coca Cola India Inc.-India Branch Office, Gurgaon vs. DDIT, New Delhi

Bench: Sh. L. P. Sahu & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. L. P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 4487,4488 & 4489/Del/2011 (Assessment Years 1998-99, 1999-00 & 2000-01) Coca Cola India Inc.- India DCIT VS. Branch Officer; Central Circle-3(1), Enkay Tower, Udog Vihar, International Taxation Drum New Delhi Shaped Building, I. P.Estate GIR/PAN : AAACC2638K New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) AND DCIT Coca Cola India Inc.- VS. Central Circle-3(1), India Branch Officer; International Taxation Drum Enkay Tower, Udog Shaped Building, Vihar, New Delhi G…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year : 2001-02

…ade on all those points on which reopening was done and additions were made on different issues, the reopening is not valid in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the assessee own case i.e., Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT, 336 ITR 136 (Del). 4. The ld. DR did not dispute these facts, however, he placed reliance upon the order of CIT(Appeals). Page 3 of 5 5. Having carefully examined the orders of lower authorities in the light of rival submissions, we find that undisputedly the AO has not made any addition on all those issues on which assessment was reopened. The final addi…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Randeep Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2004-05 Income Tax Officer, Ward - Vs. M/S. Randeep Investment 15(2), New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., 202, Mohan Place, Local Shopping Complex, C- Block, Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi Gir/Pan :Aaccr0988D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Date Of Hearing 11.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 16.08.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01/01/2014 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xviii, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2004-05 Raising The Following Grounds: I. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 45,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act Ignoring The Fact That As Per The Information Received From The Investigation Wing Of The Department, The Said Entities Are 2 Ay: 2004-05 Doing No Business Except To Provide Accommodation Entries On Commission Basis. Ii. The Appellant Craves To Be Allowed To Add Any Fresh Grounds Of Appeal And/Or Delete Or Amend Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal.

…r income, which came to the notice subsequently in the course of reassessment proceeding. In support of the contention, the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of 4 AY: 2004-05 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. reported in 336 ITR 136 and decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways(I) Ltd. reported in 331 ITR 236. In view of the submissions of the assessee, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has decided the issue of jurisdiction in reassessment from paras 5.5 to 5.8 of the impugned order. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as…

M/S Layak Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., (Presently Known As Indev Developers Pvt. Ltd), Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

…ing accommodation entries but dealing in shares and securities. Therefore, the reasons as recorded by the AO were against the material on record. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: 9 Layak Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. " Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs CIT 336 ITR 136 (Del) " CIT Vs Jet Airways India Ltd. 331 ITR 236J (Bom) " CIT Vs Software Consultants 341 ITR 240J (Del) 9. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the AO was required to record his reasons in writing u/s 148 of the Act before initiation of any proceeding u/s 147 of the Act and in the present case the AO re…

M/S. Lotus Buildtech Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

…case of CIT Vs. Ankitech pvt. Ltd [2011] 11 Taxmann Com. 100 [Del], Anil Kumar Bhatia [supra], Madugula Venu Vs. DIT [2013] 29 Taxmann 200 [Del], Chetan Das Lachman Das ITA No. 2021/2010, Filatex India Ltd [supra], Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT [2011] 12 Taxmann.com 74 [Del], Jai Steel (India) Vs. ACIT [2013] 36 Taxmann.com 523 [Raj and judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court dated 29.10.2010 in ITA No. 36/2009 CIT Vs. Murli Agro Products Ltd. [Bom] and judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s Canara Housing Development Company Vs. DCIT dated 25.7.2014 in ITA No.38/2014 have been cons…