Vipon Khanna vs. CIT 255 ITR 220 (Punjab & Haryana), Amrinder Singh Dhiman v. ITO

366 ITR 136High Court2011#20726 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 151 Section 2(22)(e)Section 250 Section 69

Judgments citing Vipon Khanna vs. CIT 255 ITR 220 (Punjab & Haryana), Amrinder Singh Dhiman v. ITO

M/S. BIOBUILD DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 24(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 4011/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sameer DalalFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ve jurisdiction to make addition on other issues. Reliance in this regard was placed upon the following judgments: - Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 311 ITR 236 (Bom) - Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2011] 366 ITR 136 (Delhi) 9. Per contra Learned Departmental Representative supported the Order passed by the Learned CIT(A) and placed strong reliance upon paragraph 5.3 to 5.5 of the impugned order. Learned Departmental Representative also placed reliance upon Explanation 2 to Section 147 of the Act to contend that since in the present case no return of income…

ITO, WARD 6(1), MOHALI vs. AMARDEEP SINGH HIRA, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 444/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 69

…Tax Act. The ld. CIT(A) did not concur with the AO on this issue because the ld. CIT(A) put reliance upon the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways Ltd. 331 ITR 236 and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories 366 ITR 136. Both these judgements propounded that if no additions are being made on an item on which assessment was reopened, then AO A.Y.2011-12 4 cannot make addition of any other item of escaped income. He has to issue a fresh notice under Section 148 after recording reasons about escapement of second item. The finding of the Id. CIT(A) in paragraph…

ANIL K SHAH (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23 (2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 214/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Shri Anil K. Shah (Huf), The Ito Ward – 23(2)(1), 703, Supershav, Nahur Road, 111, Matru Mandir, Sarvodaya Nagar, Mulund (West), Tardeo, Grant Road, Mumbai - 400080 Vs. Mumbai Pan: Aadha5072M (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Shri Anil K. Shah, The Ito Ward – 23(2)(1), 703, Supershav, Nahur Road, 111, Matru Mandir, Sarvodaya Nagar, Mulund (West), Tardeo, Grant Road, Mumbai - 400080 Vs. Mumbai Pan: Aapps6042M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Devendra Jain (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Jernold Michel (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/09/2020

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain (AR)For Respondent: Shri Jernold Michel (DR)

Section 142Section 143Section 144Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…148 and made various additions. The AR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Vipon Khanna vs. CIT 255 ITR 220 (Punjab & Haryana), Amrinder Singh Dhiman vs. ITO 269 ITR 378 (P & H) and Ranbaxy Laboratory Ltd. vs. CIT 366 ITR 136 (Delhi) to substantiate the plea that the action of the AO is not sustainable in law. The Ld. CIT (A) allowed the said ground for statistical purpose holding as under:- “I have considered the contentions of the appellant. The appellant has contended that the AO cannot make roving and Assessment Year: 2009-10 fishing enquiry in the course of the…

DIPTI MEHTA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(2), , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2031/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2009-10 Dipti Mehta Income Tax Officer बनाम / 161/1 M.G. Road, Ground Ward-45(2), 3, Govt. V/S. Floor, Kokata-700007 Place,Kolkata-101 [Pan No.Aespm 0353 A] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 23-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 30-01-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata’S Order Dated 02.07.2018 Passed In Case No. 22/Cit(A)-13/W-45(2)/Kol/2015-16 Involving Proceedings U/S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. I Come To Former Issue Of Validity Of Re-Opening In Question. This Assessee Had Filed Her Return For The Impugned Assessment Year On 28.07.2009 Declaring Taxable Income Of ₹3,99,390/-. The Same Stood Summarily Processed. The Assessing Officer Thereafter Formed Reasons To Believe As Per The Investigation Wing’S Report That The Assessee Had Taken A Loss Entry From M/S Mahasagar Group. This Alleged Loss Entry Involved An Amount Of ₹2,71,500/-. The Assessing Officer Issued Sec. 148 Notice Dated 03.02.2014. The Assessee In Turn Requested To Treat Her Original Return As The One Filed In Furtherance To Sec. 148 Proceedings. The Assessing Officer Thereafter Completed Re- Assessment On 28.02.2015 Disallowing The Sum In Question Of ₹28,891/- U/S 14A R.W.S. Rule 8D(2) In The Nature Of Direct & Administrative Expenditure To The Tune Of

Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…ounting to ₹2,71,500- whereas he disallowed the amount in question of ₹28,891/- only during the course of re-assessment (supra). Hon'ble Mumbai high court’s decision in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom)., Ranbaxy Laboratories vs. CIT (2011) 366 ITR 136 (Del) and ACIT vs. Major Deepak Mehta (2012) 336 ITR 136 (Chhattisgarh) hold that such a re-assessments not making any addition qua the specified reasons of re-opening but on other issues are not sustainable. I therefore quash the impugned re-assessment for this sole reason. 3. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on…