TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Reopening under Section 148/147 must relate to original grounds; unrelated income additions are unsustainable and deleted</h1> <h3>Sh. Aman Chaudhary, S/o Late Sh. Asha Ram Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (1), Noida</h3> The ITAT Delhi held that the reopening under section 148/147 was initiated concerning acquisition of capital assets, but the reassessment added income ... Validity of impugned reopening - AO had set into motion section 148/147 mechanism against the assessee regarding acquisition of capital assets/purchase of immovable property having value of Rs. 1,24,74,000/- whereas his reassessment framed ended up adding the sale in question of Rs. 21,93,500/-, made in the relevant previous year. HEKD THAT:- As per clinching factual position we hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd [2011 (6) TMI 4 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Jet Airways (India) Ltd.[2010 (4) TMI 431 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] to conclude that once the learned assessing authority has not made any addition qua the above sole reason of reopening, the impugned addition in the assessee's hands representing the alleged capital gains is not sustainable in law. Deleted accordingly. Assessee's appeal is allowed. The ITAT Delhi, in the appeal of Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara for AY 2011-12, addressed the validity of reopening under sections 147/148 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings concerning acquisition of capital assets valued at Rs. 1,24,74,000/-, but ultimately made an addition of Rs. 21,93,500/- relating to a sale in the relevant year. Citing *Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India* (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and *CIT v. Jet Airways (India) Ltd.* (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.), the Tribunal held that 'once the learned assessing authority has not made any addition qua the above sole reason of reopening, the impugned addition... representing the alleged capital gains is not sustainable in law.' Accordingly, the addition was deleted and the appeal allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
