CIT v. Kelvinator of India

320 ITR 521Supreme Court of India#7416 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 41(1)Section 43(5)

Issues it is cited on

section 41(1)(a)remission or cessation of liabilitysection 43(6)(c)section 65b(4)speculation losssection 73section 43(5)speculative transactionsection 43(6)opening wdvwholly and exclusively for businessdoctrine of merger

Judgments citing CIT v. Kelvinator of India

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4321/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

…he Act, but merely to review the original assessment order passed by his own office. Therefore, the same is invalid in the eyes of law. 3.5. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 521, where it held that- “Though the power to reopen under the amended s. 147 is much wider, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words “reason to believe” failing which s. 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of “mere change of opinion”, which cannot be per se reason to re- open.…

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4320/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

…he Act, but merely to review the original assessment order passed by his own office. Therefore, the same is invalid in the eyes of law. 3.5. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 521, where it held that- “Though the power to reopen under the amended s. 147 is much wider, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words “reason to believe” failing which s. 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of “mere change of opinion”, which cannot be per se reason to re- open.…

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4319/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

…he Act, but merely to review the original assessment order passed by his own office. Therefore, the same is invalid in the eyes of law. 3.5. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 521, where it held that- “Though the power to reopen under the amended s. 147 is much wider, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words “reason to believe” failing which s. 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of “mere change of opinion”, which cannot be per se reason to re- open.…

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4318/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

…he Act, but merely to review the original assessment order passed by his own office. Therefore, the same is invalid in the eyes of law. 3.5. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 521, where it held that- “Though the power to reopen under the amended s. 147 is much wider, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words “reason to believe” failing which s. 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of “mere change of opinion”, which cannot be per se reason to re- open.…

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -6 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4045/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

…he Act, but merely to review the original assessment order passed by his own office. Therefore, the same is invalid in the eyes of law. 3.5. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 521, where it held that- “Though the power to reopen under the amended s. 147 is much wider, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words “reason to believe” failing which s. 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of “mere change of opinion”, which cannot be per se reason to re- open.…

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4044/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

…he Act, but merely to review the original assessment order passed by his own office. Therefore, the same is invalid in the eyes of law. 3.5. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 521, where it held that- “Though the power to reopen under the amended s. 147 is much wider, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words “reason to believe” failing which s. 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of “mere change of opinion”, which cannot be per se reason to re- open.…

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4043/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

…he Act, but merely to review the original assessment order passed by his own office. Therefore, the same is invalid in the eyes of law. 3.5. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 521, where it held that- “Though the power to reopen under the amended s. 147 is much wider, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words “reason to believe” failing which s. 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of “mere change of opinion”, which cannot be per se reason to re- open.…

ACIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3998/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

…he Act, but merely to review the original assessment order passed by his own office. Therefore, the same is invalid in the eyes of law. 3.5. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 521, where it held that- “Though the power to reopen under the amended s. 147 is much wider, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words “reason to believe” failing which s. 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of “mere change of opinion”, which cannot be per se reason to re- open.…

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3995/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

…he Act, but merely to review the original assessment order passed by his own office. Therefore, the same is invalid in the eyes of law. 3.5. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 521, where it held that- “Though the power to reopen under the amended s. 147 is much wider, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words “reason to believe” failing which s. 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of “mere change of opinion”, which cannot be per se reason to re- open.…

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4413/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 164(2)

…ich are on record to explain its case and were duly considered by the ld. AO while completing the assessment u/s. 143(3). In the objection so raised, assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Limited, 320 ITR 521 SC, which held that the concept of change of opinion on the part of ld. AO to reopen an assessment does not stand obliterated after the substitution of section 147 of the Act by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment)Acts, 1987 and 1989. According to the Hon’ble Court, the concept of change of opinion must be treated as an inbuilt test to check the abuse…

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 2(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4055/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 164(2)

…ich are on record to explain its case and were duly considered by the ld. AO while completing the assessment u/s. 143(3). In the objection so raised, assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Limited, 320 ITR 521 SC, which held that the concept of change of opinion on the part of ld. AO to reopen an assessment does not stand obliterated after the substitution of section 147 of the Act by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment)Acts, 1987 and 1989. According to the Hon’ble Court, the concept of change of opinion must be treated as an inbuilt test to check the abuse…

ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAVAN BANDRA MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4030/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 164(2)

…ich are on record to explain its case and were duly considered by the ld. AO while completing the assessment u/s. 143(3). In the objection so raised, assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Limited, 320 ITR 521 SC, which held that the concept of change of opinion on the part of ld. AO to reopen an assessment does not stand obliterated after the substitution of section 147 of the Act by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment)Acts, 1987 and 1989. According to the Hon’ble Court, the concept of change of opinion must be treated as an inbuilt test to check the abuse…

ITO, WARD-8, VAPI, VAPI vs. SHRI SAJIT JEENDRANATH BISWAS, VALSAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 137/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.136 & 137/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Sanjit Jitendranath Biswas, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3, 49-76, Behind Bhagyodaya Hotel, Vapi Balda-Pardi, Vapi-396195. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afrpb3882K (Assessee)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) The Ito, Ward-3, Vs. Sanjit Jitendranath Biswas, Vapi 49-76, Behind Bhagyodaya Hotel, Balda-Pardi, Vapi-396195. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afrpb3882K (Assessee)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) Assessee By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar Respondent By Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr 13/05/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2022

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…tiny assessment and reopening of assessment again on the basis of same issues amounted to change of opinion not permissible under the provisions of Act. The Counsel has referred to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 521 wherein the Hon'ble court held that reopening of assessments on the same set of facts and evidences available in the original proceedings are not valid in law. 17.On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeat…

M/S. V3S INFRATECH LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3853/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sunjay Kumar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…ll Bench was constituted to consider the meaning of the expression “change of opinion” for purposes of section 147 and whether, in the light of the judgment in the case of Kelvinator reported in 256 ITR 1 (Del FB) and as approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 320 ITR 521 (SC), in a case where the assessee has furnished full and true particulars at the time of original assessment with reference to the income alleged to have escaped assessment, the AO, even within 4 years from the end of the AY, could be said to have formed an opinion and to have no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment even though he had not raise…

ACIT CIR 12(3), MUMBAI vs. KABRA & ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6965/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6965/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Acit Circle – 12(3), M/S Kabra & Associates, बनाम/ R. No. 137, Ist Floor, 2 Nd Floor, Jash Chambers, V. Aayakar Bhavan, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai 400 023. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaffk2000F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 40(1)(ia)

…ll Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Usha International Limited 348 ITR 485 (Del) and decision of Full Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Limited 256 ITR 1(Del HC) which was approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 320 ITR 521(SC). Thus, it was held that there was no opinion formed by the AO in original assessment proceedings and hence re-opening is valid as no opinion was formed by the AO and also the re- opening was done within four years of the end of the assessment year. Similarly, the plea of the assessee was rejected as there is violation of provisions of section…

CIT v. Kelvinator of India (320 ITR 521) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax