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

Naresh Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. Commssioner of Income Tax Appeal, Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3122/DEL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 3122/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Naresh Kumar, Vs Cit(A), 7/58, Chiranjiv Vihar, C.G.O. Complex, Hapur Ghaziabad-201002 Chungi, Ghaziabad-201001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Anspk2600H Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1075703183(1) Dated 21.04.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 3122/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Naresh Kumar, Vs CIT(A), 7/58, Chiranjiv Vihar, C.G.O. Complex, Hapur Ghaziabad-201002 Chungi, Ghaziabad-201001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ANSPK2600H Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 21.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1075703183(1) dated 21.04.2025, in proceedin…

Sundeep Garg, Palwal vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Faridabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2010/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2010/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sundeep Garg, Vs Income Tax Officer, H.No. D-28, Ward No. 28, Near Old Ward-2(4), Ananj Mandi, Inderpuri Mohalla, Faridabad, Palwal, Haryana-121102 Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abcpg7873N Assessee By: Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. & Sh. Sanjay Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1072941414(1) Dated 05.02.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 2010/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sundeep Garg, Vs Income Tax Officer, H.No. D-28, Ward No. 28, Near Old Ward-2(4), Ananj Mandi, Inderpuri MOhalla, Faridabad, Palwal, Haryana-121102 Haryana-122001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABCPG7873N Assessee by: Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. & Sh. Sanjay Goel, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 10.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 10.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFA…

Audhyanik Utpadak Avasmvipran Shakari Samiti Limited, Budaun vs. ITO, Budaun

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1019/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Audhyanik Utpadak Avam Vipran Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Budaun, Village-Dalalnagar, Post Uttar Pradesh Miyaoo Tehsil, Dataganj, Dist.- Budaun, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aadaa0338B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Gyanendra Singh Shakya (In Person) Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 147Section 148

…ection 148/147 proceedings to examine the issue of cash deposits of Rs.1,04,22,000/- whereas he ended up to re-estimate the turnover in question @ 8%; respectively. 3. This 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 such a reopening itself is not sustainable in law once the learned Assessing Officer had not made any addition qua the above sole reason. Ordered accordingly. 3. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd July, 2025 (…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Filatex India Limited, Delhi

ITA 5000/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

…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 assessment were record…

Marvelous Cement Private Limited, New Delhi vs. National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4100/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…een 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 2,58,87,207/- on the issues which are not the subject matter of reopening and without making additions on the issue for which reasons for reopening the assessment were recorde…

Marvelous Cement Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 16(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4099/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Marvellous Cement Pvt.Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Flat No.305, 3Rd Floor, Ward-16(4), Bakshi House, 40-41 Nehru New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaecm9931F Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Marvellous Cement Pvt.Ltd., Vs National E-Assessment Flat No.305, 3Rd Floor, Centre, New Delhi Bakshi House, 40-41 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaecm9931F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca & Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders, Both Dated 22.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi- 6/10624/2019-20 & Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10022053 Respectively, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”]. Both The Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders, Dated 24.12.2019 U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act & Dt. 15.09.2020

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…een 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 2,58,87,207/- on the issues which are not the subject matter of reopening and without making additions on the issue for which reasons for reopening the ITA No.4099 & 4100/Del/…

Narendra Prasad Rai, Delhi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1692/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1692/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Narendra Prasad Rai, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-36/X-3, Dilshad Garden, Ward-70(5), New Delhi-110095 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acfpr9031H Assessee By: None Revenue By : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.06.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1072338735(1) Dated 20.01.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

…ns of Rs.34,82,186/- in question. It is thus clear that the learned assessing authority has nowhere made any addition qua the above sole reason of reopening. 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 25/06/2025. (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 25/06/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS*…

Vikram Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-28(5), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1641/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1641/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Vikram Sharma, Vs Income Tax Officer, D-29, Pocket-D, Sarita Vihar, Ward-28(5), Delhi-110076 New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bgnps0126B Assessee By: Sh. R. K. Raman, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.06.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11, Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Vadodara’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1071957173(1) Dated 07.01.2025, In Proceedings U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Raman, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148

…Sharma Rs.8,13,567/- in question. It is thus clear that the learned assessing authority has nowhere made any addition qua the above sole reason of reopening. 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 25/06/2025. (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 25/06/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS*…

Rama Shanker Pareek, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

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

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69CSection 80C

…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. 253/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2010-11 Rama Shanker Pareek, Ward No. 9, Hospital Road, Chaksu, Jaipur. बनाम Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward No. 7(2) Jaipur. स्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ABZPP7158C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Ad…

Dinessh Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward4(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1393/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Shivangi Chopra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

…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 आयकरअपील सं./ITA. No. 1393/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma E-157, Road No. 11, VKI Area, Jaipur. बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2), Jaipur. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AFEPS6643A निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Shivangi Chopra, C.A. र…

Rohit Bhadana, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1242/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1242/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Rohit Bhadana, Vs Cit(A)/Nfac, H. No. 169, Sector-15A, Delhi Faridabad, Haryana-121002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Avnpb0812F Assessee By: Sh. Ashok Goyal, Ca & Sh. Rana Gurtej Singh, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067611537(1) Dated 13.08.2024, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

…00/- in question. It 2 Rohit Bhadana is thus clear that the learned assessing authority has nowhere made any addition qua the above sole reason of reopening. 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 24/06/2025. (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 24/06/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS*…

Aman Chaudhary, Gautam Buddha Nagar vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Gautam Buddha Nagar

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1877/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1877/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Sh. Aman Chaudhary, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O Late Sh. Asha Ram, Shanti Ward-1(1), Niwas, H. No. 620, Chakki Wali Noida, Gali, Atta, Sector-27, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Uttar Pradesh-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajtpc5847K Assessee By: Self Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.06.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1070503578(1) Dated 20.11.2024, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: SelfFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 1877/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Sh. Aman Chaudhary, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/o Late Sh. Asha Ram, Shanti Ward-1(1), Niwas, H. No. 620, Chakki Wali Noida, Gali, Atta, Sector-27, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Uttar Pradesh-201301 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AJTPC5847K Assessee by: Self Revenue by : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 04.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, D…

Ankit Garg, Faridabad vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 1(1), Haryana

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1021/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Ankit Garg, Vs. Assessing Officer, H. No. 537, Ward-1(1), Sector-14, Faridabad, Haryana Haryan Pan: Akepg7046C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Charitra Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.05.2025 Order

Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Ankit Garg, Vs. Assessing Officer, H. No. 537, Ward-1(1), Sector-14, Faridabad, Haryana Haryan PAN: AKEPG7046C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Charitra Gupta, CA Department by Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 22.05.2025 Date of pronouncement 22.05.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (in short “PCIT”…

Gazala Hassan Chariyari, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 8(1)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed

ITA 5350/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Gazala Hassan Chariyari, Ito Ward– 8(1)(1) Vs. Stall No. 9A, Dadani Rizwan Manzil, Aayakar Bhavan, 124, M E S Marg, Zanda Galli Off, Maharshi Karve Road, Memonwada Road, Mumbai-400 020. Mubmai-400 003 Pan/Gir No. Aaepc3430G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(1)Section 69A

…, the ld. AR relied a number of decisions in his written submissions, but mainly focused on the following decision:-  PCIT Vs Jet Airways(I) Ltd, 331 ITR 236(Bombay HC)  DIT Vs. Black & Veatch Prichard, Inc. (Bombay HC),  Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT,336 ITR 136 (Delhi HC),  CIT vs. Monarch Educational Society (ITA No. 101 of 2016 – Delhi HC) and  PCIT vs. Jaguar Buildcon (P) Ltd. ITA No.765/2023 (Delhi HC). 3. In support of ground No.3, the ld AR of the assessee submits that during the assessment, the AO picked up other issue of cash deposits in her bank account and asked the assessee to explain the…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Delhi vs. Artistic Finance Private Limited, 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/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2014-15

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…

Institute Management Committee Iti Jhalawar, Jhalawar vs. ITO Ward Jhalawar, Jhalawar

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 41/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee In This Appeal Has Raised The Following Grounds;

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

Section 10Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 234

…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 अपील सं. / ITA Nos.39 & 41/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Institute Management बनाम ITO, Committee ITI Jhalawar, Vs. Ward Jhalawar, RICO Road, Kota Jhalawar स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AACF17228L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. राज…

Institute Management Committee Iti Jhalawar, Jhalawar vs. ITO Ward Jhalawar, Jhalawar

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 39/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee In This Appeal Has Raised The Following Grounds;

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

Section 10Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 234

…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 अपील सं. / ITA Nos.39 & 41/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Institute Management बनाम ITO, Ward Committee ITI Jhalawar, Vs. Jhalawar, RICO Road, Kota Jhalawar स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AACF17228L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. राज…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore vs. Kamatchipuram Vellingiri Jayaraman, Coimbatore

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed, where as the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2777/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. D.Komali Krishna, CITFor Respondent: Mr.Venkatswami, ITP &

Section 147Section 148

…going proviso". 4. The Ld, CIT (A) erred in not taking cognizance of the fact that the issue of re-opening the incomes under the ambit of the re-assessment proceedings decided in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 12 taxmann.com 74/200 Taxman 242 (Delhi)/336 ITR 136 (Delhi)/[2011] 242 CTR 117 (Deihl) have been overruled by the The SUPREME COURT OF INDIA in Jakhotia Plastics (P.) Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax [2018] 94 taxmann.com 96 (SC). 5. For these grounds and any other ground Including amendment of grounds that may be raised during the course of the appeal proceedings, the order of learne…

Bhagirath Pakharia, Jhansi vs. Ward 2 (3)(1), Jhansi

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 571/AGR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.565/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.566/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 567/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 568/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 569/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 570/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 571/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Bhagirath Pakharia Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 124, Nanak Ganj, Sipri Bazar, Ward 2(3)(1), Jhansi. Vs. Jhansi (Up) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amdpp-6709-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Prarthana Jalan, Ca – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025

For Appellant: Ms. Prarthana Jalan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

…capital gains by invoking section 50C of the Act, but ended up making section 69A unexplained money addition only which is not sustainable in light of CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani [(2013) 258 CTR 268 (Guj.), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). We, thus quash the impugned reopening on this first and foremost legal issue which renders all other pleadings as academic. Ordered accordingly. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. 6. Taking the same view, we quash impugned assessment for the same very reasons. Delving into oth…

Bhagirath Pakhria, Jhansi vs. Ward 2 (3)(1), Jhansi

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 570/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Prarthana Jalan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69A