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 367,359 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

Dharam Chand Agarwal, Kanpur (Uttar Pardesh) vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur- I

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

ITA 358/LKW/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Dharam Chand Agarwal, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 14/75 D Gopal Vihar Civil Lines, Kanpur-I, U.P. Kanpur, U.P. Pan: Aanpa1942L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Pr. Cit, Kanpur-1 On 31.03.2024 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Pcit Has Set Aside The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao On 28.03.2022 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B For The A.Y. 2016-17 & Directing Him To Pass A Fresh Assessment Order. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Dated 28.03.2022, Which Has Been Set Aside U/S 263 Of The Act By The Impugned Order Passed By Pr. Cit, Itself Was Illegal & Was Not Enforceable Due To Various Infirmities In The Initiation & Conclusion Of Re-Assessment Proceedings, The Same Could Not Have Been Subjected To Revision U/S 263 Of The Act & Consequently The Impugned Order Is Bad In Law & Wholly Without Jurisdiction. Without Prejudice To The Aforesaid 2. Because The Pr. Cit Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That The Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer, Nfac U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Is Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & In Setting Aside The Same By Exercising His Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘A’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2016-17 Dharam Chand Agarwal, vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, 14/75 D Gopal Vihar Civil Lines, Kanpur-I, U.P. Kanpur, U.P. PAN: AANPA1942L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue by: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR Date of hearing: 07.10.2025 Date of pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. Pr. CIT, Kanpur-1 on 31.03.2024 under section 263 of t…

Mukesh Gupta, Kamala Nagar vs. Dlc-CC-(1)(13), Delhi

ITA 7427/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 7396/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Ita No. 7426/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Ita No. 7427/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2023-24 Mukesh Gupta, Vs Acit, D-89, 3Rd Floor, Kamla Nagar, Central Circle-3, Jawahar Nagar, North Delhi, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110007 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akopg1709J Assessee By: Sh. Govind Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 Order These Assessee’S Three Appeals Ita Nos. 7396, 7426 & 7427/Del/2025, For Assessment Years 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2023-24, Arise Against The Cit(A)-23, Delhi’S Din & Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1081204873(1), 1081205368(1) & 1081205086(1) All Dated 26.09.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Govind Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

…clear that the learned assessing authority has nowhere made any addition qua the above sole reason of reopening involving the assessee’s sale consideration. 4. That being the clinching case, I hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to quash the impugned reopening for the above precise reason in very terms. 5. These assessee’s three appeals ITA Nos. 7396, 7426 & 7427/Del/2025 are allowed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23/12/2025.…

Mukesh Gupta, Kamala Nagar vs. Dlc-CC-(1)(13), Delhi

ITA 7426/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 7396/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Ita No. 7426/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Ita No. 7427/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2023-24 Mukesh Gupta, Vs Acit, D-89, 3Rd Floor, Kamla Nagar, Central Circle-3, Jawahar Nagar, North Delhi, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110007 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akopg1709J Assessee By: Sh. Govind Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 Order These Assessee’S Three Appeals Ita Nos. 7396, 7426 & 7427/Del/2025, For Assessment Years 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2023-24, Arise Against The Cit(A)-23, Delhi’S Din & Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1081204873(1), 1081205368(1) & 1081205086(1) All Dated 26.09.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Govind Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

…clear that the learned assessing authority has nowhere made any addition qua the above sole reason of reopening involving the assessee’s sale consideration. 4. That being the clinching case, I hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to quash the impugned reopening for the above precise reason in very terms. 5. These assessee’s three appeals ITA Nos. 7396, 7426 & 7427/Del/2025 are allowed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23/12/2025.…

Mukesh Gupta, Kamla Nagar vs. AO, Central Circle

ITA 7396/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 7396/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Ita No. 7426/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Ita No. 7427/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2023-24 Mukesh Gupta, Vs Acit, D-89, 3Rd Floor, Kamla Nagar, Central Circle-3, Jawahar Nagar, North Delhi, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110007 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akopg1709J Assessee By: Sh. Govind Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 Order These Assessee’S Three Appeals Ita Nos. 7396, 7426 & 7427/Del/2025, For Assessment Years 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2023-24, Arise Against The Cit(A)-23, Delhi’S Din & Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1081204873(1), 1081205368(1) & 1081205086(1) All Dated 26.09.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Govind Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

…clear that the learned assessing authority has nowhere made any addition qua the above sole reason of reopening involving the assessee’s sale consideration. 4. That being the clinching case, I hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to quash the impugned reopening for the above precise reason in very terms. 5. These assessee’s three appeals ITA Nos. 7396, 7426 & 7427/Del/2025 are allowed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23/12/2025.…

Indu Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 58(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6875/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 6875/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Indu Gupta, Vs Income Tax Officer, Sinha & Sinha Law Chambers Llp Ward-58(1), 108-109, Parmesh Business Centre-1, New Delhi-110002 Plot No. 20, Community Centre, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aespg0965Q Assessee By: Sh. Prince Mohan Sinha, Adv. & Sh. Aniket Krishnatray, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1076388993(1) Dated 22.05.2025, In Proceedings U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Prince Mohan Sinha, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148

…lear that the learned assessing authority has nowhere made any addition qua the above sole reason of reopening involving other assessee’s sale consideration. 4. That being the clinching case, I hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to quash the impugned reopening for the above precise reason in very terms. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23/12/2025. (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 23/12/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS*…

Harish Banga, Hisar vs. Assessment Unit, New Delhi

In the result, both the substantial ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 4893/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 (Physical Hearing) Harish Banga, Assessment Unit, 264, Bank Colony, Hisar, Vs. Faceless Assessment Unit Haryana – 125001. Income Tax Department, Pan – Abqpb 8845 F New Delhi-110001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri H.K. Batra, Ca & Shri Naman Chawla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12 .2025 O R D E R Per : Pawan Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit (A) Dated 08.07.2025 Vide Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri H.K. Batra, CA &For Respondent: Shri Virender Kumar Singh, SR. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 56Section 57

…assessment order as regards deletion of relevant immovable property which formed basis for reopening assessment, other addition made reassessment order could not be sustained.  Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited Vs. CIT 2011 336 ITR 136 where it has been held that "it is essential that the items in respect of which the reasons had been recorded are 8 Harish Banga assessed. If the AO accepts that the items for which reasons are recorded have not escaped assessment, it means he had no "reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment" and the issue of the notice becomes inva…

Gian Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 33(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal is allowed

ITA 1307/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1307/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 बनाम Gian Gupta, Acit, Kh. No. 389/2/2-415, Vs. Circle 33(1), Civic Centre, Ford Service Centre, Nh-8, Rangpuri, Minto Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaapg7797G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act and in so doing he had violated the principles laid down in the case of Jet Airways reported in 331 ITR 236 (Bom.), Oriental Bank of commerce reported in 272 CTR 56 (Del), and the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories reported in 336 ITR 136 (Del). 5 2.1 Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. Right at the outset, it deserves to be mentioned that in this case the Ld. AO’s action are legally faulty on all the grounds alleged by the Ld. AR. Thus, we find…

Gujarat Vaibhav Publications Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1359/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37

…e issues based on which the case was reopened. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following decisions:- a) CIT vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani – [2014] 355 ITR 172 (Guj) b) CIT vs Jet Airways – [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bombay) c) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. – [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) 8. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that no addition was made in respect of bogus purchase of Rs.2,00,000/- from M/s. A.M. Enterprise as recorded in the reason and, therefore, the Assessing Officer was not correct in making addition in respect of purchases made from M/s. Vandana Raj Corporation. As an alternative argument, the Ld. Sr. Couns…

Gujarat Vaibhav Publications Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1358/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37

…e issues based on which the case was reopened. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following decisions:- a) CIT vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani – [2014] 355 ITR 172 (Guj) b) CIT vs Jet Airways – [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bombay) c) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. – [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) 8. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that no addition was made in respect of bogus purchase of Rs.2,00,000/- from M/s. A.M. Enterprise as recorded in the reason and, therefore, the Assessing Officer was not correct in making addition in respect of purchases made from M/s. Vandana Raj Corporation. As an alternative argument, the Ld. Sr. Couns…

Sri Krisha Traders, Sivagangai vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2223/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2223/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. N. Vijay Kumar, C.A *+For Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)

…6 of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court is as under: 16. The decision in the case of Jet Airways (cited supra) was referred to by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited v. CIT [2011] 12 taxmann.com 74/200 Taxman 242/336 ITR 136 (Delhi), wherein it was held that the Legislature could not be presumed to have intended to give blanket powers to the Assessing Officer that on assuming jurisdiction under section 147 regarding assessment or reassessment of escaped income, he would keep on making roving inquiry and thereby including different items of income not connected or rel…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Kolkata vs. M/S Royal Touch Fablon Private Limited

The appeal is dismissed

ITAT/132/2025HC Calcutta03 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ORDER OD-18 ITAT/132/2025 IA NO:GA/2/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA VS. M/S. ROYAL TOUCH FABLON PRIVATE LIMITED BEFORE: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR Date : 3rd December, 2025. Appearance: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …for Appellant Mr. S. M. Surana Adv. Mrs. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv. …for Respondent The Court: Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue suggests the following questions arise for c…

Nipin Steels Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the impugned addition is quashed

ITA 3923/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 Nipin Steels Private Ltd., Vs Ito, Y-4-A-C, Loha Mandi, Ward 18(3), Naraina Industrial Estate, Delhi Delhi – 110 028. Pan:Aaccm2046H (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Ashwini Kumar & Shri Ankur Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ashwini Kumar &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Nipin Steels Private Ltd., Vs ITO, Y-4-A-C, Loha Mandi, Ward 18(3), Naraina Industrial Estate, Delhi Delhi – 110 028. PAN:AACCM2046H (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee by : Shri Ashwini Kumar & Shri Ankur Aggarwal, CA Revenue by : Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 16.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 03.06.2025 of the Co…

Shri Rakesh Arora, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-30(8), Delhi

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

ITA 2159/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Sh. Rakesh Arora Ito C-4, 4123 Ward- 30 (8) Vasant Kunj, Vs Delhi Delhi-110070 Pan No.Aaepa727P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Respondent By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025

Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

…the Assessing Officer relying on the reasons recorded is deleted, no other addition can be sustained as held by the Bombay High Court in Jet Airways (1) Ltd. (supra) and Delhi High Court in ATS Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs CIT, 336 ITR 136 (Delhi). It is submitted that the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal has also taken a similar view in B.P. Poddar Foundation for Education vs ACIT (ITA No. 1863/Kol/2019 decided on 13.11.2019) which has been confirmed by the Calcutta High Court by order dated 13.09.2022 reported in 448 ITR 695 (Calcutta). It is submitted that the learned Accountant Me…

M/S. Muse Advertising and Media Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 10(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2202/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH,KOLKATA SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.2202/Kol/2024 (Assessment Year 2011-2012) M/s Muse Advertising And Media Private Limited, 6B, Bentinck Street, Kolkata - 700001 [PAN: AAGCM8950J] ……..…...……………....Appellant vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 ............................ Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Akkal Dudhewala, Adv. Department represented by : Sandeep Lakra, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hear…

Omega Broadcast Private Ltd, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4952/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER ITA No.4950, /Del/2024 [Assessment Year: 2016-17] M/s Omega Broadcast Private ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Limited, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh D-220, Sector-63, Vs Noida, 201307 (U.P.) PAN-AABCO5355L Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year:2014-15] M/s Omega Broadcast Private ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Limited, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh D-220, Sector-63, Vs Noida, 201307 (U.P.) PAN-AABCO5355L Assessee Revenue AND [Assessment Year:2013-14] M/s Omega Broadcast Private ACIT, Circle-2…

Omega Broadcast Private Ltd, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4951/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER ITA No.4950, /Del/2024 [Assessment Year: 2016-17] M/s Omega Broadcast Private ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Limited, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh D-220, Sector-63, Vs Noida, 201307 (U.P.) PAN-AABCO5355L Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year:2014-15] M/s Omega Broadcast Private ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Limited, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh D-220, Sector-63, Vs Noida, 201307 (U.P.) PAN-AABCO5355L Assessee Revenue AND [Assessment Year:2013-14] M/s Omega Broadcast Private ACIT, Circle-2…

Omega Broadcast Private Ltd, Noida vs. ACIT Circle-2(2)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4950/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER ITA No.4950, /Del/2024 [Assessment Year: 2016-17] M/s Omega Broadcast Private ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Limited, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh D-220, Sector-63, Vs Noida, 201307 (U.P.) PAN-AABCO5355L Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year:2014-15] M/s Omega Broadcast Private ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Limited, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh D-220, Sector-63, Vs Noida, 201307 (U.P.) PAN-AABCO5355L Assessee Revenue AND [Assessment Year:2013-14] M/s Omega Broadcast Private ACIT, Circle-2…

Guljar, Saharanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Saharanpur

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

ITA 3797/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv [through VC]For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3797/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2009-10] Shri Guljar Vs. The I.T.O [TDS] Village Umahi Kota Ward - 3(5) Post Kota, Dist. Saharanpur, Saharanpur Uttar Pradesh PAN – BXAPG 1492 G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv [through VC] Department By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 08.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, A.M:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of t…

Maya Kumari, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 581/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठौड़ कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 581/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 Maya Kumari 167, Om Shiv colony, Shyam Marg, Jhotwara, Jaipur. बनाम Vs. The ITO, Ward-2(2), Jaipur. स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ATDPK4509Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. राजस्व की ओरसे…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Vrinda Farms Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4849/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Acit, Central Circle 4, Vs. Vrinda Farms Private Limited, New Delhi. 43, Community Centre, Bhageria House, Zakir Nagar, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110 025. (Pan : Aaacv0355L) Co Nos.13 & 19/Del/2025 (In Ita No.4849/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Vrinda Farms Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 4, 43, Community Centre, New Delhi. Bhageria House, Zakir Nagar, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110 025. (Pan : Aaacv0355L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Order : 29.10.2025 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 68

…was made on account of the reasons recorded and therefore, AO has no jurisdiction to make any other addition. For this, he placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs CIT [2011] reported in 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) and in the case of CIT-II vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd. reported in [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). Ld. AR thus requested that the re-assessment order making additions of INR 100,11,32,484/- on the issues which are not the subject matter of reopening and without making additions on the issue for which reasons for reopening the 11 CO Nos.13 & 19/Del/…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT (336 ITR 136) — Cited in 398 Judgments | BharatTax