Ranbaxy Laboratory v. CIT

M/S SRIGARV BUILDCON PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 32, DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

…03.2025 has ended up in adding the varying sums as having received for M/s. White Line Apparels Pvt. Ltd. This clinching factual position has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. 3. Faced with this situation, I hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratory Vs. CIT (2011) 335 ITR 136 (Del); CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.); Matchless Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, 2025 (1) TMI 866 (ITAT – Delhi); DCIT Vs. Interlink Foods Pvt. Ltd, ITA Nos. 4669,4670 & 4671/Del/2024 (ITAT – Delhi); Dinesh Babu Saxena Vs. ITO, ITA No. 3874/Del/2025 (ITAT -Delhi) that such a reopening suffering from complete non- applica…

OMPRAKASH,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO , BULANDSHAHR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Om Prakash, Vs. Income Tax Officer, S/O- Lallu Singh, Purana Bulandshahr, Chattha Patti Harnam Uttar Pradesh Singh Near Sattar Sunar Siyana, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aaspo6327Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

…on 27.03.2024 ended up in invoking section 40A(3) cash expenditure payment disallowance of Rs.73,10,000/- which has been upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. That being the clinching factual position, we hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratory Vs. CIT (2011) 335 ITR 136 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) holding that such a reopening wherein the learned Assessing Officer does not make any addition qua the sole reason therein; is not sustainable in law. The same stands quashed in very terms therefore. 2 | P a g e All other pleadings between the parties on merits stands rendered acad…

RAM SINGH DABAS (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SMT. RAJESH DEVI),DELHI vs. ITO WARD 69(5), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 Ram Singh Dabas, Vs. Income Tax Officer, (Through Legal Heir Smt. Ward-69(5), Rajesh Devi), 1296, Dada New Delhi Shahad Wali Gali, Village Pooth Khurd, Delhi Pan: Acjpd5372R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit(Dr)

…/- whereas his assessment framed on 31st December, 2018 ended up in adding capital gains of Rs.95,00,228/- which has been upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. That being the clinching factual position, we hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratory Vs. CIT (2011) 335 ITR 136 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) that such a reopening wherein the learned Assessing Officer does not make any addition qua the sole reason therein; is not sustainable in law. The same stands quashed in very terms therefore. All other pleadings between the parties on merits stands rendered academic. 4. This assesse…

SHUEB URF MOHD KUNWER SHUEB,KHURJA vs. ITO, BULANDSHAHR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13

…g the other issues/ claim of section 54F deduction and cost of acquisition/ improvement etc. 3. This being the clinching factual position I hereby quote ATS Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 166 taxmann.com 61 (Delhi) & Ranbaxy Laboratories v. CIT (2011) 335 ITR 136 (Del) to conclude that such a reopening itself is not sustainable in law. The same stands quashed in very terms therefore. All other pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic interest only. 4. This assessee’s appeal ITA No. 4345/Del/2025 is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 06.10.2025. (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBE…

ARUN TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmanarun Tyagi, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (1), C/O Ch. No.206-207, Ansal Satyam, Ghaziabad. Rdc, Rajnagar, Ghaziabad – 201 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Awdpa3342A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri B.S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2025 Date Of Order : 09.05.2025 O R D E R 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 25.09.2024 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1 Because, The Order Of Learned Lower Authority Is Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case. 2. Because, Ld. Cit (A) Grossly Erred In Sustaining The Impugned Order & Validity Of Proceedings As 'Reason' Became Non-Existent & Admittedly Ld. Ao Has Made No Addition On The Reason For Issuance Of Notice U/S 148, Hence Subsequent Proceedings/Other Additions Are Illegal In View Of Ration Of Oriental Bank Of Commerce - 99 Taxmann.Com 312 (Sc), 49 Taxmann.Com 485 (Del.) Etc.

…reasons recorded for reopening of the same. He submitted that the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2010) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT (2011) 335 ITR 136 (Del.) squarely applies to the case in hand and he prayed that the reassessment proceedings itself is bad in law, deserves to be quashed. 5 4. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the issue raised by the assessee are elaborately discussed by the ld. CIT (A) in paras 6.3, 6.3.1. and…