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 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 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 68 Section 142(1)Section 151 Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 148(2)income escaping assessment reason to believe kelvinator escapement of income reopening of assessment change of opinion notice under section 148 tangible material reassessment proceedings regular assessment service of notice

Judgments citing Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT

Ram Khilari Meena, Dausa vs. ITO, Dausa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1292/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44A

…(Rajasthan) v/s ITO, Tonk (Jaipur ITAT) (ITA No. 1116/JP/2024 vide order dated 08.01.2025) 3. CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom)(HC) – Relevant para no. 16 and 17 at page no. 17 of compilation. 4. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. - vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Delhi High Court) - Relevant para no. 21 at page no. 28 of compilation. 5. ITO v Bidbhanjan Investment & Trading CO (P ) Ltd ( 2011) 59 DTR 345 ( Mum) (Trib) – Relevant para no. 17 at page no. 35 of compilation. 6. Dy. CIT v. Takshila Educational Society (2016) 378 ITR 520 (Pat.) (HC) – Relevant para is last but one at page no. 39 of compilation…

Katrathal Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited, Katrathal vs. ITO Ward 1 Sikar, Sikar

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1001/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234ASection 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "SMC" JAIPUR श्री राठौड़ कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य एव श्री नरेन्द्र कुमार, न्यायिक सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपीलसं. / ITA No.1001/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2019-20 Katrathal Gram Sewa Sahkari | बनाम | The ITO, Samiti Ltd. Ward-1, Katrathal District Sikar, Sikar. Vs. Sikar. स्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआरसं. / PAN/GIR No.:AABAK6096Q | अपीलार्थी / Appellant | प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby :Sh. Shrawan Kumar…

Sunita Saini, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Faridabad, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1877/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1877/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Sunita Saini, Income Tax Officer, House No.743P, Sector-38, Vs. Ward 1(4), Gurugram, Haryana. Faridabad. Pan No.Awmps2317Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 151Section 263

…mitted that since no addition was made in the assessment for which the assessment was reopened the reassessment proceedings are required to be quashed in view of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT (336 ITR 136), the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (331 ITR 236). 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that in spite of the assessee vide letter dated 17.07.2021 has requested the AO to provide copy of reasons recorded for reopening but the same was provided in a letter form which is pl…

Steelwill Globotech Private Limited, Faridabad, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Faridabad, Haryana

In the result, ground nos

ITA 1466/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal (Through VC), &For Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT(DR)

Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 92C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “डी”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नवीन चं", लेखाकार सद" के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.1466/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2018-19) Steel Will Globotech P. Ltd., KH No. 32/25/2/5, KH No. 35/5/1/4, Wazirpur, Faridabad 121001, Haryana ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN: AAJCA-9094-Q बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Aayakar Bhawan, New CGO Complex, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent NH-IV, B-Block, Faridabad, Haryana 121001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant by : Shri Nikhil Goyal (Throug…

Whole Sale Cloth Merchant Association, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Kota, Kota

ITA 962/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

…nd part of the section by the phrase "and also which is used in a "cumulative and conjunctive sense. Following the said judgment of the Bombay High Court, same view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in the cases of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136/200 Taxman 242/12 taxmann.com 74 and CIT v. Adhunik Niryat Ispat Ltd. (2011) 63 DTR 212 and also the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Mohmed Juned Dadani [2013] 214 Taxman 38/30 taxmann.com 1/(2014) 356 ITR 172 36. With due respect to the view taken in the aforesaid cases, we are unable to persuade ourselves to follow the same. 37. Inse…

Whole Sale Cloth Merchant Association, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Kota, Kota

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

ITA 961/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

Arvind Jain, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 5(1)(1), Uttar Pradesh

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5173/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 5173/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Arvind Jain, Vs Income Tax Officer, 487, 11Nd Floor, Haveli Haider Kuli, Ward-5(1)(1), Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acapj9132E Assessee By: Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1077776400(1) Dated 25.06.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

…assessing authority has nowhere made any addition qua the above sole reason of reopening. 4. That being the clinching case, I hereby quote ATS Infrastructure Ltd. vs. ACIT (2024) 166 taxmann.com 61 (Delhi), 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. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic. 6. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 24/09/2025. (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 24/09/2…

Mo. Shariph Kureshi, Sikar vs. ITO Ward-4 Sikar, Sikar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 366/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 Mo. Shariph Kureshi cuke The ITO, S/o Phajaludin, Prop. Hindustan Vs. Ward-4, Sikar. Tyre Retrading Center Losal, Sikar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: EBQPS2798L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta,…

Bhupesh Gupta, Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh vs. ACIT(Central Circle), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 442/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 441 & 442/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shri Bhupesh Gupta, Vs The Acit, Aakash Hospital & Central Circle, Diagnostic, Nalagarh, Shimla. Solan. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aarpg5916A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025 Virtual Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT Sr.DR

Section 147

…m ‘A’ was made and addition of item ‘B’ was made. Thus, these additions are not sustainable in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways reported in 331 ITR 236, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT, 336 ITR 136 and judgement of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Md. Juned 353 ITR 172. 4. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. Since the issue agitated in the additional ground of appeal is a jurisdictional one, therefore, in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. Vs CIT…

Bhupesh Gupta, Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh vs. ACIT (Central Circle ), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 441/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT Sr.DR

Section 147

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem vs. Govinda Rajulu Srinivasan, Salem

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1245/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.C. Yamuna, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 40A(3)

…ich were not stated in the reasons recorded for reopening, by relying on the ratio of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Jet Airways (I) Ltd. reported in [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bombay HC), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) and the Hon’ble Madras High Court decision in the case of Martech Peripherals (P) Ltd. reported in [2017] 394 ITR 733 (Mad.) and in the case of Tractors & Farm Equipment Ltd. v. ACIT reported in [2018] 409 ITR 369 (Mad.) The Ld.CIT(A) while adjudicating the legal issue noted that the AO has reopened the assessment on account of sale of…

M/S Lorgan Lifestyle Ltd., Pune vs. ITO, Ward14(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 215/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri B S RajpurohitFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 143(3)Section 250

…l for the assessee also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Double Dot Finance Ltd. (2013) 331 Taxman.com 352, judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136, judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani (2013) 30 Taxman.com 1. 7.1 Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that as per the reasons recorded by ld. AO for the alleged escapement of income, there were three issues, firstly substantial cash deposit in the bank account, secondly purchase of more than on…

Sonia Kapoor, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-69(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4052/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshsonia Kapoor, Vs. Income Tax Officer, F-17, Arya Nagar, Ward-69(1), Cghs, Patparganj, New Delhi Delhi-110092 Pan: Akwpk6530H Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv Sapra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147

…fails and consequentially the entire reassessment proceedings would have to be declared as void ab initio. This view of mine is further fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Vs. CIT reported in 336 ITR 136 (Del). Similar view was expressed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways Pvt. Ltd reported in 331 ITR 236 (Bom) and by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Martech Peripherals P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax reported in 394 ITR 733 (Mad). Respectfully following the same, I have no hesitation in quashi…

M/S. Biobuild Developers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 4011/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sameer DalalFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Biobuild Developers 301, Crescent Tower, Opp. Infinity Mall, New Link Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai - 400053, Maharashtra. [PAN:AAHFB4024A] …………. Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1)(3), Mumbai Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400012. Maharashtra. …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Sameer Dalal For the Respondent/Department : Shri Pravin Salunkhe Date Conclusion of hearing : 30.07.2025 Pronouncement of order : 25.08.2025 O R D…

Lioyd'S Register of Shipping (Now Known As Lioyd 'S Register Group Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1457/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Lloyd’S Register Of Shipping Dy. Cit (It)-3(1)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building, (Now Known As Lloyd’S Register Group Ltd.) Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 17Th Floor, Unit No. 1702, 1703 & Vs. 1704, Building Q2, Aurum Q Parc, Gen 4/1, Ttc, Thane Belapur Road, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai-400 710

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 234CSection 40

…tical view was expressed by the co- ordinate benches in the decisions cited supra. In case of Mahesh Kumar (supra) learned Third Member following the ratio laid down in case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Limited 331 ITR 236 (Bom) and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 336 ITR 136 (Del), has held as under: 9. The facts, apart from being matters of record, are not in dispute. In this case, there was no regular assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. The assessment was sought to be reopened by notice dated 28.03.2019 only on the ground of escapement of income pertaining to exemption of LTCG under Section 10(38) of the A…

Purys Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 20(1), New Delhi

ITA 4642/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 144Section 147Section 148

…ver which stands upheld in the lower appellate discussion. It is thus clear that both the lower authorities have not made any addition qua the foregoing sole reopening ground of reopening. That being the case, I hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratories v. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) to quash both the impugned reopening (s) in very terms. Ordered accordingly. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic. 3. These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 4641 & 4642/Del/2025 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in respective case files. Pronounced in open court on 20.08.2025 (SATBEER SIN…

Purys Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 20(1), New Delhi

ITA 4641/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 144Section 147Section 148

Shivam Readymix Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 166/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 69C

…t, the additions in respect of other items which were not part of “reasons to believe” cannot be made. Similar view was taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, reported in 2011-TIOL- 356-HC-DEL [336 ITR 136]holding that there must be some nexus between 'reasons to believe' recorded and the assessment framed. Ram Singh 306 ITR 343 (Rajasthan) Reassessment – Income escaping assessment – Income believed to have escaped investment explained by assessee – Tribunal rightly holding reassessment proceedings initiated on non-existing facts and invalid – Inco…

Mahesh Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-68(6), Delhi

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

ITA 2650/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…e Act.” 3.7. In reaching the above conclusion, the Kolkata Tribunal relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd.(supra) and of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136(Del), where it discussed that the AO may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings though the reasons for such issue were not included in the notice; however, if after issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act, the AO accepted the contention of the assessee an…

Mandeep Singh Oberoi, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1) Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2843/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Mandeep Singh Oberoi, C/O- Ca Vaibhav Goel, Circle-2(1)(1), 75 Navyug Market, Ghaziabad 1St Floor, Ghaziabad Pan: Aagpo4208A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Vaibhav Goel, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 148

…t order herein dated 07.11.2019 ended up in disallowance of loss on house property of Rs.1.5 lakhs, which has been confirmed in the lower appellate discussion. 3. The above being the clinching factual position, I hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratory Vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to conclude that the impugned reopening itself is not sustainable once the learned lower authorities have not made any addition qua the above sole reason. The same stands quashed in very terms. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd July, 20…