https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770555 The ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where the AO recorded reasons for reopening based on unexplained cash deposits but made additions based on different transactions discovered during verification. Following the jurisdictional Delhi HC decision in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., the tribunal ruled that when additions are made on grounds different from those recorded for initiating reassessment, the original reasons do not survive. The CIT(A)'s attempt to distinguish Ranbaxy by relying on Karnataka HC precedent was rejected since the Delhi HC decision was binding as jurisdictional authority. The assessee's appeal was allowed. en-us Fri, 09 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 May 2025 09:17:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770555 The ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where the AO recorded reasons for reopening based on unexplained cash deposits but made additions based on different transactions discovered during verification. Following the jurisdictional Delhi HC decision in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., the tribunal ruled that when additions are made on grounds different from those recorded for initiating reassessment, the original reasons do not survive. The CIT(A)'s attempt to distinguish Ranbaxy by relying on Karnataka HC precedent was rejected since the Delhi HC decision was binding as jurisdictional authority. The assessee's appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 09 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770555