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

M/S Maheshwari Coal Benefication& Infrastructure P. Ltd, Bilaspur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

ITA 108/NAG/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR 153C - FINAL – 15/12/2024 – 02:35 PM – 86 PAGES BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT MMBER ITA no.108/Nag./2024 ITA no.109/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year – 2009-10) (Assessment Year – 2010-11) ITA no./110/Nag./2024 ITA no.111/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year – 2011-12) (Assessment Year – 2012-13) ITA no.112/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) M/s. Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure Private Limited 697, 1st Floor, Ward no.33 ……………. Appellant Behind 16–Kholi, Tikrapara Bilaspur 495 001 PAN – AAECM9298D v/s Dy. Commiss…

Prerna Srivastava, Panipat vs. ITO Ward - 3, Panipat

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1161/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Sh. Vimal Punmiya, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148

…1,169/- made in the relevant previous year and ended up in making addition of her cash withdrawals only amounting to Rs.7,40,300/-. This being the clinching facts emerging from the case file, I hereby quotes Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) that such a 2 Prerna Srivastava course of action is no more available to the learned assessing authority once he has not made any addition qua the sole reason recorded for initiating section 148/147 proceedings in motion. The impugned re-opening is quashed in very terms therefo…

Lakhmi Chand Yadav, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 516/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 516/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Lakhmi Chand Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, Village Mirzapur Hardet Haveli Ward-1(4), Mujehri, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepy4744P Assessee By : Sh. M. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A), Faridabad Dated 28.11.2019 In Case No. 10339/2018-19 In Proceedings U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. M. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…reopening? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal correctly interpret the decision reported in the case of Jet Airways (1) Limited reported 331 ITR 236 (Bom) and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. reported in 336 ITR 136 (Del) on facts in the instant case? 2. We have heard Mr. Vipul Kundalia, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. Anurag Roy, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Sourabh Bagaria assisted by Mr. Saumya Kegriwal and Mr. G.S. Gupta, learned Advocates for the respondents. 3. The respondent assessee filed the return of income for the as…

ACIT Circle, Karnal vs. Mahesh Timber Pvt. Ltd., Karnal

ITA 1330/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Mahesh Industries Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Circle-Karnal, Timber Market, Haryana Sadar Bazar, Karnal, Haryana Pan :Aafcm3302F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Vs. M/S. Mahesh Timber Pvt. Circle – Karnal, Ltd., Haryana Timber Market, Sadar Bazar, Karnal, Haryana Pan :Aaccm5526G (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.19/Del/2021 [Arising Out Of Ita No.1329/Del/2020] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Acit, Mahesh Industries Pvt. Ltd., Timber Market, Circle-Karnal, Sadar Bazar, Karnal, Haryana Haryana Pan :Aafcm3302F (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.20/Del/2021 [Arising Out Of Ita No.1330/Del/2020] Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Mahesh Industries Pvt. Ltd., ACIT, Circle-Karnal, Timber Market, Haryana Sadar Bazar, Karnal, Haryana PAN :AAFCM3302F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2011-12 ACIT, Vs. M/s. Mahesh Timber Pvt. Circle – Karnal, Ltd., Haryana Timber Market, Sadar Bazar, Karnal, Haryana PAN :AACCM5526G (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.19/Del/2021 [Arising out of ITA No.1329/Del/2020] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. ACIT, Mahesh Indust…

ACIT Circle, Karnal vs. Mahesh Industries Pvt. Ltd., Karnal

ITA 1329/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 148

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. Sunlight Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd

ITA/222/2022HC Delhi12 Nov 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…ther addition was permissible. 10. The learned ITAT following the decision of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jet Airways (I.) Ltd.: (2011) 331 ITR 236 as well decision of this court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited v. CIT: (2011) 336 ITR 136 accepted the aforesaid contention. 11. In the aforesaid context, the Revenue has projected the following questions for consideration of this Court: “i. Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in quashing the order passed by the assessing order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147/148 by relying on the jud…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -1 vs. Naveen Infradevelopers & Engineers Pvt. Ltd

ITA - 524 / 2024HC Delhi16 Oct 2024

Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 68

…hether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT correctly interpreted the decision reported in the case of CIT VS Jet Airways ( I) Ltd. Reported in [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom) and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs CIT reported in [2011] 336 ITR 136( Delhi ) on facts of the instance case when SLP on same issue is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT (IT2) Vs ITA-524/2024 Black Veatech Prichand Inc. in C.A. No., 9887/2018?” 14. Undisputedly, the controversy involved in the present case – whether any addition can be made by the AO pursuant to initiation of re-ass…

M/S Royal Touch Fablon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 333/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

…upra) wherein the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236 and also Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Vs. CIT 336 ITR 136 (Del.) that where the income the escapement of which was the foundation for recording of reasons to believe, is not assessed or reassessed in the order u/s. 147, then it is not mere opened to the AO to independently assess any other income, which comes to his notice subsequently during the course of re-assessment proceedings. The similar ratio ha…

Subhash Runwal, Bibwewadi, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(4) Pune, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

ITA 1279/PUN/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Subhash Runwal 204, Solitari-5, Nr. Kalyan Bhel, Bibwewadi Rd., Pune-411037. Pan: Adbpr7670R. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr CD Upasani [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

…on the 'X' income, the AO does not possess the jurisdiction to tax any other income in the reassessment order. This ratio finds reiterated in ‘SV Jadhav Vs ITO’ [2024, 163 Taxmann.com 263 (Bom)], and also followed in ‘Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs CIT’ [2011, 242 CTR 117 (Del)], ‘ACIT Vs MD Mehta’ [24 Taxmann.com 147 (Cha)] and ‘Ganesh Housing Corp. Ltd. Vs DCIT’ [2021, 207 Taxman 180 (Guj)]. 15. In view of the aforestated discussion and judicial precedents we are of the considered view that, if the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe that such income has escaped assessment, which in fact di…

Vishnu Kumar, Bharatpur vs. ACIT Or JCIT Or DCIT Or Asst. CIT Or ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Bharatpur

ITA 85/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Dated 08.12.2023 Passed, U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “ The Act”), By Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Whereby His Appeal Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 Has Been Dismissed. 2. The Assessee Was Before Learned Cit(A), Having Felt Dissatisfied With The Assessment Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passed By The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, (CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o aJh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 85/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sh. Vishnu Kumar cuke ACIT/JCIT/DCIT/Asst.CIT/ITO, E221, RIICO Industrial Area, Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. Bharatpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AIAPK7814L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Mukesh S…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Abhilasha Jain, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed with no order as to 3

ITA 673/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…ns of reopening. The addition has been done with respect to other transactions. Respectfully following the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs CIT [2011] 12 taxmann.com 74 (Delhi)/2011 200 Taxman 242 (Delhi)/[2022] 336 ITR 136 (Delhi)/[2011] 242 CTR 117 (Delhi) [03-06-2011], Hon’ble Bomaby High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income- tax-5, Mumbai v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2010] 195 Taxman 117 (Bombay)/[2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bombay)/[2011] 239 CTR 183 (Bombay)[12-04- 2010] and Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-7, Ja…

Sureshkumar Jethanand Rawlani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 17(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1054/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D.R. &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246Section 4Section 5Section 56(2)(vii)Section 80

…by the revenue was taken note of in Mohmed Juned Dadani and it was held that the explanatory memorandum to Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act was not brought to the notice of the High Court in the (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) (2011) 336 ITR 136 (2018) 99 taxmann.com 312 (SC) (2022) 138 taxmann.com 296 (Bombay) (2013) 355 ITR 172 (Guj.) (2012) 344 ITR 641 (Chattisgarh) (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) (2017) 394 ITR 733 (Mad) (2016) 387 ITR 416 (Del) (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) (2017) 291 CTR 272 (P&H) said decision. It is further submitted by Mr. Bagaria that in the reasons for reopening there was n…

Sureshkumar Jethanand Rawlani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 17(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1053/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D.R. &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246Section 4Section 5Section 56(2)(vii)Section 80

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Global Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 791/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Sri C. Ramesh, A.R

Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

…own in the following decisions wherein it is held that, if the issue of reopening is not sustainable, the proceedings will have to be dropped and additions cannot be made on a different ground in a reopened assessment. i Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd V. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) ii CIT V. Adhunik Niryatlspat Ltd (2011) 63 DTR 212 (Del) iii Martech Peripherals (P) Ltd V. DCIT (2017) 81 Taxmann.com 73 (Madras)/(2017) 394 ITR 733 (Madras) iv CIT V. Jet Airways (l) Ltd (2010) 331 ITR 336 (Born) vCIT V. Takshila Educational Society (2016) 131 DTR 332 (Pat) vi CIT V. Double Dot Finance Ltd (2013) 214 Taxman 47 (Mag)(Bom)…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Global Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

ITA 790/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S, Praveena, D.R

Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

…own in the following decisions wherein it is held that, if the issue of reopening is not sustainable, the proceedings will have to be dropped and additions cannot be made on a different ground in a reopened assessment. i Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd V. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) ii CIT V. Adhunik Niryatlspat Ltd (2011) 63 DTR 212 (Del) iii Martech Peripherals (P) Ltd V. DCIT (2017) 81 Taxmann.com 73 (Madras)/(2017) 394 ITR 733 (Madras) iv CIT V. Jet Airways (l) Ltd (2010) 331 ITR 336 (Born) v CIT V. Takshila Educational Society (2016) 131 DTR 332 (Pat) vi CIT V. Double Dot Finance Ltd (2013) 214 Taxman 47 (Mag)(Bom…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Global Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 789/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Sri C. Ramesh, A.R

Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

…own in the following decisions wherein it is held that, if the issue of reopening is not sustainable, the proceedings will have to be dropped and additions cannot be made on a different ground in a reopened assessment. i Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd V. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) ii CIT V. Adhunik Niryatlspat Ltd (2011) 63 DTR 212 (Del) iii Martech Peripherals (P) Ltd V. DCIT (2017) 81 Taxmann.com 73 (Madras)/(2017) 394 ITR 733 (Madras) iv CIT V. Jet Airways (l) Ltd (2010) 331 ITR 336 (Born) v CIT V. Takshila Educational Society (2016) 131 DTR 332 (Pat) vi CIT V. Double Dot Finance Ltd (2013) 214 Taxman 47 (Mag)(Bom…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru, Bangalore vs. Coffee Day Global Limited, Bangalore

ITA 788/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Sri C. Ramesh, A.R

Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Global Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 787/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Sri C. Ramesh, A.R

Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

…own in the following decisions wherein it is held that, if the issue of reopening is not sustainable, the proceedings will have to be dropped and additions cannot be made on a different ground in a reopened assessment. i Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd V. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) ii CIT V. Adhunik Niryatlspat Ltd (2011) 63 DTR 212 (Del) iii Martech Peripherals (P) Ltd V. DCIT (2017) 81 Taxmann.com 73 (Madras)/(2017) 394 ITR 733 (Madras) iv CIT V. Jet Airways (l) Ltd (2010) 331 ITR 336 (Born) v CIT V. Takshila Educational Society (2016) 131 DTR 332 (Pat) vi CIT V. Double Dot Finance Ltd (2013) 214 Taxman 47 (Mag)(Bom…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Global Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 786/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Sri C. Ramesh, A.R

Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Enterprises Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

ITA 785/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S, Praveena, D.R

Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

…own in the following decisions wherein it is held that, if the issue of reopening is not sustainable, the proceedings will have to be dropped and additions cannot be made on a different ground in a reopened assessment. i Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd V. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) ii CIT V. Adhunik Niryatlspat Ltd (2011) 63 DTR 212 (Del) iii Martech Peripherals (P) Ltd V. DCIT (2017) 81 Taxmann.com 73 (Madras)/(2017) 394 ITR 733 (Madras) iv CIT V. Jet Airways (l) Ltd (2010) 331 ITR 336 (Born) v CIT V. Takshila Educational Society (2016) 131 DTR 332 (Pat) vi CIT V. Double Dot Finance Ltd (2013) 214 Taxman 47 (Mag)(Bom…