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)

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

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 569/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

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

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 568/AGR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

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

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 567/AGR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

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

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 566/AGR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

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. 6. This assessee's appeal is allowed. Taking the same view, we quash impugned assessment for the same very reasons. Delving into oth…

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

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 565/AGR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

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…

Saloj Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali Limited, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 1685/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri D. K. Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

…1116/JP/2024 (ii) CIT vs Shri Ram Singh (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) (iii) Excel Commodity And Derivative Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI POT/132/2022 IA No. GA/1/2022 (iv) CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) (HC) (v) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Delhi High Court) Saloj Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year –2019-20 7. Our attention in this regard was first drawn to the notice issued by the AO to the assessee under Section 148A(b) of the Act confronting the assessee with the information in his possession regarding escapement of income of the assessee placed at Paper Book p…

Moorthy, Salem vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Salem

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 490/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Mr.T.S.Lakshmi VenkatramanFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…16 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…

Sunil Hanamant Naikwad, Belgaum vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Belagavi

The appeal is ALLOWED as above

ITA 220/PAN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2012-13 Sunil Hanmantsa Naikwad 1156, Saraf Galli, Shahapur, Belgaum Pan:Abeph0397N . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Belgaum. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: Mr JD Kalpavruksha [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ravindra Hattalli [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 4

…onjunctive sense. Reading these words ‘and also’ as being alternative in view of their Hon’ble Lordship would amount violence to unambiguous provision of law. 9. The decision in Jet Airways(supra) is also followed in ‘Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs CIT’ [2011, 12 Taxmann.com 74 (Del)] wherein their Hon’ble Lordship have vide para 18 further held that; ‘As per Explanation 3 if during the course of these proceedings the Assessing Officer comes to conclusion that some items have escaped assessment, then notwithstanding that those items were not included in the reasons to believe as recorded for initiation of the proc…

Zenith Barter Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 6617/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

…sessment as well as the addition made is wholly invalid. In support of such contention, ld. Counsel relied upon the following decisions: 1. CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. reported in 331 ITR 236 (Bom) 2. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 336 ITR 136 (Del) (A.Ys.2011-12 to 2016-17) Zenith Barter Private Limited vs. Dy. CIT 11. Proceeding, further, he submitted, A.O. has reopened the assessment mechanically simply based on the information received from the Investigation Wing, without conducting any independent enquiry to find out whether in reality any income has escaped assessment. Thus,…

Zenith Barter Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 6616/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

…sessment as well as the addition made is wholly invalid. In support of such contention, ld. Counsel relied upon the following decisions: 1. CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. reported in 331 ITR 236 (Bom) 2. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 336 ITR 136 (Del) (A.Ys.2011-12 to 2016-17) Zenith Barter Private Limited vs. Dy. CIT 11. Proceeding, further, he submitted, A.O. has reopened the assessment mechanically simply based on the information received from the Investigation Wing, without conducting any independent enquiry to find out whether in reality any income has escaped assessment. Thus,…

Zenith Barter Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 6615/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

…sessment as well as the addition made is wholly invalid. In support of such contention, ld. Counsel relied upon the following decisions: 1. CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. reported in 331 ITR 236 (Bom) 2. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 336 ITR 136 (Del) (A.Ys.2011-12 to 2016-17) Zenith Barter Private Limited vs. Dy. CIT 11. Proceeding, further, he submitted, A.O. has reopened the assessment mechanically simply based on the information received from the Investigation Wing, without conducting any independent enquiry to find out whether in reality any income has escaped assessment. Thus,…

Zenith Barter Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 6614/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

…sessment as well as the addition made is wholly invalid. In support of such contention, ld. Counsel relied upon the following decisions: 1. CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. reported in 331 ITR 236 (Bom) 2. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 336 ITR 136 (Del) (A.Ys.2011-12 to 2016-17) Zenith Barter Private Limited vs. Dy. CIT 11. Proceeding, further, he submitted, A.O. has reopened the assessment mechanically simply based on the information received from the Investigation Wing, without conducting any independent enquiry to find out whether in reality any income has escaped assessment. Thus,…

Zenith Barter Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 6613/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

…sessment as well as the addition made is wholly invalid. In support of such contention, ld. Counsel relied upon the following decisions: 1. CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. reported in 331 ITR 236 (Bom) 2. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 336 ITR 136 (Del) (A.Ys.2011-12 to 2016-17) Zenith Barter Private Limited vs. Dy. CIT 11. Proceeding, further, he submitted, A.O. has reopened the assessment mechanically simply based on the information received from the Investigation Wing, without conducting any independent enquiry to find out whether in reality any income has escaped assessment. Thus,…

Zenith Barter Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 6612/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

…sessment as well as the addition made is wholly invalid. In support of such contention, ld. Counsel relied upon the following decisions: 1. CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. reported in 331 ITR 236 (Bom) 2. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 336 ITR 136 (Del) (A.Ys.2011-12 to 2016-17) Zenith Barter Private Limited vs. Dy. CIT 11. Proceeding, further, he submitted, A.O. has reopened the assessment mechanically simply based on the information received from the Investigation Wing, without conducting any independent enquiry to find out whether in reality any income has escaped assessment. Thus,…

Valmik Thapar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 18

Appeal is allowed and the additions made by the AO in the

ITA/182/2021HC Delhi25 Mar 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 54Section 54E

…e reasons for which the reassessment proceedings had been initiated are not sustained. Undisputedly, the said question is squarely covered by the several decisions of this court. 34. In Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax: (2011) 336 ITR 136, this court had construed the expression “and also any other income chargeable to tax” as occurring in Section 147 of the Act to mean that other income could also be brought to tax provided an addition was made for the reasons that had led to initiation of assessment proceedings. We consider it apposite to set out the following extract of th…

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Ambattur Constructions Private Limited, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 288/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.288/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ito M/S. Ambattur Constructions Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Ward-1(1) 86E-2, Industrial Estate, Vs. Chennai. Ambattur, Chennai-600 058. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-7390-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. Cross Objection No.47/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.288/Chny/2024) (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Ambattur Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Ito (Merged With Ambattur Infra India Pvt. Ltd.) बनाम/ Corporate Ward-1(1), 86E-2, Industrial Estate, Vs. Chennai. Ambattur, Chennai-600 058. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-7390-N (Cross-Objector) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Smt. D. Babitha (Jcit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-03-2025

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. D. Babitha (JCIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…he intends to do so, a fresh notice under section 148 would be necessary, the legality of which would be tested in the event of a challenge by the assessee. This decision has been followed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (12 Taxmann.com 74). Respectfully following the same, we would hold that the impugned additions are not sustainable on this score only. The corresponding grounds raised by the assessee in the cross-objection succeeds. 6. In view of our adjudication as above, the other legal grounds as urged by Ld. AR as well as adjudication on merits has been rendered mere a…

Income Tax Officer, Karnal vs. Opinder Singh Virk, Karnal

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

ITA 1095/DEL/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…ther than what was recorded for reopening the case. In such a situation, we find that the hon’ble Delhi Court in the case of ATS Infrastructure Ltd reported in [2024] 166 taxmann.com 61 (Delhi), affirming its decision in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT , 336 ITR 136 (Del) has held as follows: 25. The position in law which emerges from the aforesaid discussion is that while it is true that the AO would have to establish that reassessment is warranted on account of information in its possession which appears to indicate that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, once the assessment itself is reope…

Ashok Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ITO WD-2(1), Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1225/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv.& Sh. Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 5

…in fact escaped income; he has no jurisdiction to reassess other items of income—In such a situation, Expln. 3 to s.147 does not come to the reserve of AO" 2.2.3 This followed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v/s CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del HC) wherein, it was held that the AO had jurisdiction to reassess income other than the income in respect of which proceedings u/s 147 were initiated but he was not justified in doing so when the very reasons for initiation of those proceedings ceased to survive. Legislature could not be presumed to have intended to give blanket powers to th…

Shree Auro Iron Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pravin Saraswant, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 263Section 48

…do so, a fresh notice under section 148 would be necessary, the legality of which would be tested in the event of a challenge by the assessee.” There is another judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Delhi High Court) wherein also similar view was upheld and following was held :- “21. In view of our above discussions, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction to reassess issues other than the issues in respect of which proceedings are initiated but he was not so justified when the reasons for the initi…

Kailash Chand, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 565/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dinesh Badgujar, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234A

…in fact escaped income; he has no jurisdiction to reassess other items of income—In such a situation, Expln. 3 to s.147 does not come to the reserve of AO” 2.2.3 This followed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v/s CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del HC) wherein, it was held that the AO had jurisdiction to reassess income other than the income in respect of which proceedings u/s 147 were initiated but he was not justified in doing so when the very reasons for initiation of those proceedings ceased to survive. Legislature could not be presumed to have intended to give blanket powers to 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

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

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

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

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

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

Saloj Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali Limited, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara

Moorthy, Salem vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Salem

Sunil Hanamant Naikwad, Belgaum vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Belagavi

Zenith Barter Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC 4(1), Mumbai

Zenith Barter Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

Zenith Barter Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC 4(1), Mumbai

Zenith Barter Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC 4(1), Mumbai

Zenith Barter Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC 4(1), Mumbai

Zenith Barter Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC 4(1), Mumbai

Valmik Thapar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 18

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Ambattur Constructions Private Limited, Chennai

Income Tax Officer, Karnal vs. Opinder Singh Virk, Karnal

Ashok Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ITO WD-2(1), Kota

Shree Auro Iron Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jaipur

Kailash Chand, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward, Behror