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

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

ITA 784/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

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)…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Enterprises Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

ITA 783/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, Bangalore vs. Coffee Day Enterprises, Bengaluru

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

ITA 782/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Enterprises Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 781/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 Enterprises Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 780/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

Ashok Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. PCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4937/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Royshri Ashok Kumar, Vs. Pr.Cit, C/O M/S. Rrr Taxindia, Ghaziabad. D-28, South Extension Part – 1, New Delhi – 110 049. (Pan : Abppy8405P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sujit Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 Date Of Order : 26.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Ghaziabad Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That Having Regard To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Pr.Cit Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 & Has Erred In Holding The Assessment Order Dated 29-12-2016 As Erroneous As Well As Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. That Having Regard To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Pr.Cit Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding As Under While Passing The Impugned Order.

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Ashok Kumar, vs. Pr.CIT, C/o M/s. RRR TAXINDIA, Ghaziabad. D-28, South Extension Part – 1, New Delhi – 110 049. (PAN : ABPPY8405P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Sujit Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 13.06.2024 Date of Order : 26.06.2024 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Pr.CIT, Ghaziabad dated 30.03.2019 for the assessment year 20…

Ritu Gupta, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Intl Tax, Gurugram

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 297/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Garg & Arihant Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT( DR)

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69A

…s. Monarch Educational Society [2016] 387 ITR 416. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court expounded as follows: “8. The issue urged by the Revenue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 336 ITR 136 ( Delhi) which has been followed in CIT v. Software Consultants [2012] 341 ITR 240 ( Delhi). In sum, if no addition is made on the basis of the reasons to believe recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment under section Page 4 of 6 ITA No.-297/Del/2024 Ritu Gupta 148 of the Act, resort cannot be had to Explanation 3 to sectio…

Naresh Kumar Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 221/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan SoganiFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Dhaka, CIT

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ss or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to the notice subsequently in the course of proceedings…”. [Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 311 ITR 236 (Bomb HC), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Delhi HC)] 3.8. As setout above, in the present case, ld. PCIT assumed jurisdiction, under Section 263, in relation to “Issue No. 1” and “Issue No. 2”, which were not the subject matter, for which the case of the assessee was reopened. 3.9. Accordingly, if the issue for which the case of the assessee was reopened, that is verification of the g…

Vibha Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 69(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 760/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

…ubmitted that the issues Vibha Jain vs. ITO raised by the AO in the show cause notice were not part of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment and hence not permissible as per decision of jurisdictional High Court Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs CIT 336 ITR 136 (Del) and Honorable Bombay High Court in the case of CIT VS JET Airways India Ltd. 331 ITR 236 (Bom). However, the asssessee vide letter dated 15/12/2019 submitted details of all the expenses claimed against Income from profession. He submitted that the Assessing Officer ignored the legal objection and proceeded to disallowed 50 percent of tot…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Empee Distilleries Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1380/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1380/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Vs M/S. Empee Distilleries Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ‘Empee Tower, Corporate Circle-2(1) 59, Harris Road, Pudupet, Chennai-600 034 Chennai-600 002. Pan : Aaace-1687-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. Suresh Guduri, Jcit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. A.R.Karthick Lakshmanan, Advocate सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2024 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Mr. Suresh Guduri, JCITFor Respondent: Mr. A.R.Karthick

Section 147

…o charge any other income that escaped assessment which comes to his notice subsequently. The Ld.CIT(A) has relied upon the following case laws laid down by various High Courts:- 1. Jet Airways India Ltd .- 331 ITR 236 (Bom) 2. Ranbaxi Laboratories Ltd. - 336 ITR 136 (Del) 3. Major Deepak Mehta – 344 ITR 641 (Chatisgarh HC) 4. Adhunik Niryat Ispat Ltd – 63 DTR 212 (Del) 5. During the course of hearing, Ld. DR fairly accepted the fact that addition has not been made on this issue on which the case was re-opened. The Ld. DR however argued that as per Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act the Assessing Off…

Murshid Ahmed, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Faridabad

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

ITA 3124/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Murshid Ahmed, Vs Ito, J-100, Ashok Chowk, Ward-1(5), Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Faridabad, Haryana. Rajasthan-302004. Pan-Aagpa2309E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rakesh Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Faridabad Dated 31.01.2019 For The Assessment Year 2007- 08. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2007-08] Murshid Ahmed, vs ITO, J-100, Ashok Chowk, Ward-1(5), Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Faridabad, Haryana. Rajasthan-302004. PAN-AAGPA2309E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Rakesh Jain, Adv. Respondent by Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement 18.04.2024 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), Faridabad dated 31.01.2019 for the asses…

Jaswant Singh Yadav, Gurugram vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Gurgaon

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

ITA 1973/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…143(3) of the Act it has been held that the respondent assessee had been able to show and establish the genuineness of and capacity to make the said investment. 10. Similar issue had arisen before this Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited versus CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Delhi). In the said case, the Division Bench had also examined Explanation 3 to Section 147, which was inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act of 2009 with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1989. Reference was made to the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT versus Jet Airways India Limited, (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) in which it has been held as…

Compact Texfab Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 6(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9524/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshcompact Texfab Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 1032, H. No. 66, Gali No. Ward-6(2), 33, Jafrabad, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcc3621P Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03/04/2024

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

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

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Compact Texfab Pvt. Ltd, Vs. ITO, 1032, H. No. 66, Gali No. Ward-6(2), 33, Jafrabad, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AADCC3621P Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv Revenue by: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07/02/2024 Date of pronouncement 03/04/2024 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.9524/Del/2019 AY 2011-12, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16,…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur vs. Mukesh Kumar Soni, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 656/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani (FCA)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148A

…income which comes to his notice during the reassessment proceedings. In the absence of reassessing the income which was the basis for issuing the notice under section 148 not other income could be assess. b) Ranbaxy lab Ltd Vs. CIT (2011), 57 DTR (Del) 281, 336 ITR 136 Although the assessing officer may assess or reassess income escaped from assessment and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice in the course of proceedings but if the income the escapement of which was basis of the formation of the ground for issuing notice under section 148 is not asse…

Nandkumar Namdeorao Diwate, Kolhapur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1161/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1161/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nandkumar Namdeorao Diwate, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), 492, C-Ward, Kolhapur Opp. Main Rajaram Highschool, Juna Rajwada, Karveer, Kolhapur, Maharashtra-416001 Pan : Aeqpd 1603L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

…r res integra by virtue of the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., 331 ITR 236 (Bom.), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT, 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) and the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Ram Singh, 306 ITR 343 (Rajasthan), wherein it is held that it is not permissible for the Assessing Officer to make any other addition, if no addition is made in respect of items of which reasons were recorded for issuance of notice u/s.148. 6 We find it relevant to extra…

H S Impex Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-11(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…making additions on other items unconnected to the main additions proposed in the reasons recorded. A reference was made to the judgment rendered in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd., (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) and Ranbaxy Laboratories vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del). 8. Per contra, the ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the AO has rightly assumed jurisdiction to make re-assessment by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act on the basis of tangible material / information received from Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.-I), Faridabad based on outcome of inquiries in the matter of assessee, based…

H S Impex Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-11(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 148/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Vishram Sahakari Awas Samiti Limited, G.Noida vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1667/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…Monarch Educational Society [2016] 387 ITR 416. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court expounded as follows: “8. The issue urged by the Revenue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) which has been followed in CIT v. Software Consultants [2012] 341 ITR 240 (Delhi). In sum, if no addition is made on the basis of the reasons to believe recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment under section 148 of the Act, resort cannot be had to Explanation 3 to section 147 of the Act to make an addition on any oth…

Manu Stock Broking Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3085/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Miss. Padmavathy S.()

Section 143(3)Section 250

…ncome. If he intends to do so, a fresh notice under section 148 would be necessary, the legality of which would be decided in the event of a challenge by the Assessee. 11.3 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court as well, in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs CIT 336 ITR 136 (Del) has also dealt with identical issue as involved in the instant case and by considering the judgment in the case of CIT Vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd (supra) ultimately held that where a new 8 ITA 3085/Mum/2023 Manu Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd issue comes before AO during the course of proceedings of assessment or re-assessment of escaped income and w…

M/S Ramji Board & Paper Mill Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 6 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3152/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Miss. Padmavathy S. ()

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya a/wFor Respondent: Shri. Srinivas, Ld. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 69C

…section 148 would be necessary, the legality of which would be decided in the event of a challenge by the Assessee. 5.1 Ld. Counsel of the Assessee further emphasized that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court as well, in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs CIT 336 ITR 136 (Del) has also dealt with identical issue as involved in the instant case and by considering the judgment in the case of CIT Vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd (supra) ultimately held that where a new issue comes before AO during the course of proceedings of assessment or re-assessment of escaped income and which intends to take into account, he would be req…