CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

256 ITR 1High Court2002#163 most cited

What is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. authority for?

An Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment under Section 147 based on a mere change of opinion regarding the same material available during the original assessment. Reopening requires fresh, tangible material or information that leads to a reason to believe income has escaped assessment.

439

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. · Kelvinator principle · section 147 · section 148 · reopening assessment · mere change of opinion · tangible material · income escaping assessment · sanction under section 151 · full and true disclosure

Also reported as

123 Taxmann 433108 Taxmann.com 176174 CTR 617

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 151Section 153DSection 250

Issues it is cited on

kelvinatorsection 114sanction under section 151mere change of opinionfirst proviso to section 147material facts necessary for assessmentfull and true disclosurewithin four yearssection 144achange of opinionlive linktangible material

Judgments citing CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

Niagara Financial Consultants P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, City-6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 762/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.762/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बनधम/ Niagara Financial Pr. Cit, City-6 Room No.501, 5Th Floor, Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C-201, Kailash Explanade, Aayakar Bhavan, Lbs Marg, Opp. Sheryas Maharshi Karve Road, Theatre, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400086. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn1918R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Revenue By: Shri Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-06, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015-16 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 2. 1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Iii Law, Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Passing The Revision Order U/S.263 Though The Reassessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) Is Not Erroneous Anti In So Far Is Not Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue 2.0 The Ld. Pr. Cit, Before Setting Asides The Assessment Ordev.De Novo On Invoking Sec 263(I), Ought To Have Considered The Understated Facts, Being;

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.762/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बनधम/ Niagara Financial Pr. CIT, City-6 Room No.501, 5th Floor, Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C-201, Kailash Explanade, Aayakar Bhavan, LBS Marg, Opp. Sheryas Maharshi Karve Road, Theatre, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400086. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCN1918R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Revenue by: Shri Mahesh Akhade (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date…

Ramesh Kumar Purohit, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, City-17, Mumbai

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

ITA 692/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ramesh Kumar Purohit, Pr. Cit, City-17, Room No. 120, 1St Floor, Sahara Shopee, Shop No. 191, Off. Manish Market, S.S. Musafirkhana Road, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Mumbai-400 001. 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Axmpp 6458 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. D.K. Gupta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ramesh Kumar Purohit, Pr. CIT, City-17, Room No. 120, 1st floor, Sahara Shopee, Shop No. 191, Off. Manish Market, S.S. Musafirkhana Road, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 to C- Mumbai-400 001. 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. PAN No. AXMPP 6458 N Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Prakash Jhunjhunwala, AR Revenue by : Mr. D.K. Gupta, DR Date of Hearing : 23/12/2021 Date of pronouncement : 10/01/2022 ORDER…

Abhishek Agarwal, Nani Daman vs. ITO, Daman Ward, Daman

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 97/SRT/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jan 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.97/Srt/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Abhishek Agarwal Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Radha Madhav Kunj, Opp. Gem Daman Ward, Daman. Plaza, College Road, Nani Daman. [Pan: Adxpa8893P अपीलाथ" /Assessee ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीकीओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A. राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 14.10.2020 उद्घोषणाकीतारीख/Pronouncement On: 06.01.2022

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…roceedings. We note that in reassessment proceedings, the assessing officer targeted the transaction relating to M/sAZ Jewels, which had already been examined by the assessing officer in the original assessment proceedings. In CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court was considering a case of reopening u/s 147 within 4 years from the end of the assessment year. The Court held that when a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of section 143 (3) of the Act, a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind. It was held that if it…

Bangalore Raju Mudaliar Mohan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 10(1), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by both the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandar, AdvocateFor Respondent: (DR)
Section 10BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…ein it was held that the concept of 'change of opinion' must be treated as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Referring to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [reported in (2002) 256 ITR 1] as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561, it was contended that if two interpretations were possible, the interpretation, which upheld the constitutionality, should be favoured. 8. It was further contended by the appellant - assessee that in any event, the Assessing Officer could not initiate reasses…

Bangalore Raju Mudaliar Mohan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 10(1), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by both the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandar, AdvocateFor Respondent: (DR)
Section 10BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…ein it was held that the concept of 'change of opinion' must be treated as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Referring to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [reported in (2002) 256 ITR 1] as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561, it was contended that if two interpretations were possible, the interpretation, which upheld the constitutionality, should be favoured. 8. It was further contended by the appellant - assessee that in any event, the Assessing Officer could not initiate reasses…

ACIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. National Bank for Agriculature and Rural Developement, Mumbai

ITA 4277/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () A.C.I.T-3(2)(2) National Bank For Agriculture & R. No. 674, 6Th Floor, Vs. Rural Development, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, C-24, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai -400 020 Complex,Bandra, Mumbai – 400 051 Pan No. Aaact4020G (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Jehangir Mistri, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2021 Order Per Ravish Sood, J.M:

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36

…al Tribunal in our case, in the case of Pirojsha Godrej Foundation v. ADIT (44 SOT 24) (Mum.), has categorically held that without proper "reasons to believe", reassessment u/s. 147 of the Act is bad in law. b) In the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (256 ITR 1) (Delhi), Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed as under: “An order of assessment can be passed either in terms of subsection (1) of section 143 or sub-section (3) of section 143. When a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of the sub-section (3) of section 143 a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 94/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 705/2017(Del),  CIT V/s. Vika Polymers [341 ITR 537] (Delhi HC),  CIT vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi [296 ITR 0292] (Raj HC),  CIT vs. Jain Constructions Co [257 ITR 0336] (Raj HC),  CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [ 256 ITR 1 ](Dei. HC),  CIT vs. Sr. Suresh G. Shah [ 289ITR 110 ]( Guj. HC ),  CIT vs. Parmanand M. Patel [ 278 ITR 3 ]( Guj. HC ),  CIT vs. Abhishek Corporation [ IT Ref. No. 15 of 2003 ] ( Guj. HC ),  R.Srinivasan vs. DCIT [ 29 taxmann.com 279 ]( Mad. HC), (AY 2014-15 to 2016-17) M/s.Amrut Sarovar  VishwaInfrawaysPvt. Ltd vs. CIT [ ITA 596,597 & 599/Pu…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 93/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 705/2017(Del),  CIT V/s. Vika Polymers [341 ITR 537] (Delhi HC),  CIT vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi [296 ITR 0292] (Raj HC),  CIT vs. Jain Constructions Co [257 ITR 0336] (Raj HC),  CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [ 256 ITR 1 ](Dei. HC),  CIT vs. Sr. Suresh G. Shah [ 289ITR 110 ]( Guj. HC ),  CIT vs. Parmanand M. Patel [ 278 ITR 3 ]( Guj. HC ),  CIT vs. Abhishek Corporation [ IT Ref. No. 15 of 2003 ] ( Guj. HC ),  R.Srinivasan vs. DCIT [ 29 taxmann.com 279 ]( Mad. HC), (AY 2014-15 to 2016-17) M/s.Amrut Sarovar  VishwaInfrawaysPvt. Ltd vs. CIT [ ITA 596,597 & 599/Pu…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 92/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 705/2017(Del),  CIT V/s. Vika Polymers [341 ITR 537] (Delhi HC),  CIT vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi [296 ITR 0292] (Raj HC),  CIT vs. Jain Constructions Co [257 ITR 0336] (Raj HC),  CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [ 256 ITR 1 ](Dei. HC),  CIT vs. Sr. Suresh G. Shah [ 289ITR 110 ]( Guj. HC ),  CIT vs. Parmanand M. Patel [ 278 ITR 3 ]( Guj. HC ),  CIT vs. Abhishek Corporation [ IT Ref. No. 15 of 2003 ] ( Guj. HC ),  R.Srinivasan vs. DCIT [ 29 taxmann.com 279 ]( Mad. HC), (AY 2014-15 to 2016-17) M/s.Amrut Sarovar  VishwaInfrawaysPvt. Ltd vs. CIT [ ITA 596,597 & 599/Pu…

M/S Shivalika Realities P Ltd, Indore vs. ITO 5(1), Indore

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

ITA 95/IND/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

…e done obliquely, meaning thereby, whatever is prohibited by law to be done could not have been legally effected by an indirect and circuitous contrivance. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i)CIT Vs. Kalvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del)(FB) ii)Windson Electronics (P) Ltd.& Anr.Vs.UOI&Ors (2004) 269 ITR 481 (Cal) iii)Smt. Durgabati & Smt.Narmadabala Gupta Vs. CIT,(1956)30ITR 101(Pat); iv)Raja Yadvendra Datt Dube Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh(1964)54ITR506 (All) v) Babul Lath Vs. ACIT (2002) 83 ITD 691 (Mum) 6.00 REASONS RECORDED BY THE LEARNED AO WERE NOT REASONABLE AND THE SAM…

M/S Shivalika Realities P Ltd, Indore vs. ITO 5(1), Indore

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

ITA 94/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

…e done obliquely, meaning thereby, whatever is prohibited by law to be done could not have been legally effected by an indirect and circuitous contrivance. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i)CIT Vs. Kalvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del)(FB) ii)Windson Electronics (P) Ltd.& Anr.Vs.UOI&Ors (2004) 269 ITR 481 (Cal) iii)Smt. Durgabati & Smt.Narmadabala Gupta Vs. CIT,(1956)30ITR 101(Pat); iv)Raja Yadvendra Datt Dube Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh(1964)54ITR506 (All) v) Babul Lath Vs. ACIT (2002) 83 ITD 691 (Mum) 6.00 REASONS RECORDED BY THE LEARNED AO WERE NOT REASONABLE AND THE SAM…

DCIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ceat Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, and departmental appeal is treated as infructuous

ITA 673/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit-6(2)(1) M/S. Ceat Ltd. Room No.563, Aaykar Bhawan Rpg House, 463 M.K.Road, Churchgate Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar & Shri Manprit Duggal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 47

…ly mind and pass an order. An assessment order is not a mere scrap of paper. To accept the submission of Mr.Chhotaray, would mean to negate the well settled position in law as stated by the Supreme Court in the case “CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., [(2002) 256 ITR 1 (Delhi)(FB)]” that the concept of 'change of opinion' brought in so as to have in built test to check abuse of power. In view of the above, we find no substance in the submissions raised by Mr.Chhotaray. 11. The decisions cited by Mr.Chhotaray, learned Counsel on behalf of the Revenue in support of his submissions that oversight in passing assessme…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Fibres and Fabrics International Pvt. Ltd

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/542/2016HC Karnataka17 Aug 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.542 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU 560 095. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-11(3), PRESENT ADDRESS CIRCLE-3(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU 560 095. ... APPELLANTS (BY MR. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. FIBRES AND FABRICS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., NO.21, E-1, 2ND STAGE PEEN…

Compucom Software Limited, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-VI, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 256/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jun 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 256/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 cuke M/s Compucom Software Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Limited, IT 14-15, RIICO Income Tax, Circle- VI, Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur Jaipur ToLFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACG5818P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri Rohan Sogani (CA)…

M/S District Co-Operative Central Bank Limited, Bidar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Gulbarga

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

ITA 185/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

…ITA No.185/Bang/2019 District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Bidar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012 – 13 District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Near Basaveshwar Circle Hyderabad Road Vs. ACIT Circle-1 Bidar Gulbarga PAN NO : AAAAD0760F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. R. Premi, D.R. Date of Hearing : 25.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 22.06.2021 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee has filed thi…

State Bank of India vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order dated 24

ITA/569/2017HC Karnataka15 Jun 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 17Section 260Section 260ASection 32

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.569 OF 2017 BETWEEN: STATE BANK OF INDIA (FORMERLY STATE BANK OF MYSORE) LOCAL HEAD OFFICE COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT 4TH FLOOR, 65, ST. MARKS ROAD BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DGM & CFO LOCAL HEAD OFFICE BANGALORE MR. RAMESH CHANDRA GOKULAPALAN. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.,) AND: THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNITS BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Andhra Bank, Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 315/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Union Bank Of India, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Erstwhile Andhra Income-Tax, Bank), Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabca 7375C (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Union Bank Of India, Income-Tax, (Erstwhile Andhra Circle – 1(1), Bank), Hyderabad. Hyderabad Pan – Aabca 7375C

For Appellant: Shri S. AnanthamFor Respondent: Smt. Amisha S. Gupt
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

…pened U/s 147 of the Act on change of opinion of the Assessing Officer when the assessee has already disclosed all the information necessary for completion of original assessment". 1) CIT Vs. Bhavji Lavji [79 ITR 582 (SC)] 2) CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [256 ITR 1 (Delhi)(FB)] 3) JCIT Vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd.[258 ITR 126 (Gauhati)] 4) CIT Vs. Rajasthan Patrika Ltd. [258 ITR 300 (Raj)] 7 I.T.A. No. 192/Hyd/2019 & ITA No. 315/Hyd/2019 Union Bank of India,, Hyd. 5) Jindal Photo Films Ltd. Vs. DCIT [234 ITR 170 (Delhi)] 6) Garden Silk Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [237 ITR 668 (Guj)] 7) General Mrigendra S…

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile-Andhra Bank), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 192/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Union Bank Of India, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Erstwhile Andhra Income-Tax, Bank), Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabca 7375C (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Union Bank Of India, Income-Tax, (Erstwhile Andhra Circle – 1(1), Bank), Hyderabad. Hyderabad Pan – Aabca 7375C

For Appellant: Shri S. AnanthamFor Respondent: Smt. Amisha S. Gupt
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

…pened U/s 147 of the Act on change of opinion of the Assessing Officer when the assessee has already disclosed all the information necessary for completion of original assessment". 1) CIT Vs. Bhavji Lavji [79 ITR 582 (SC)] 2) CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [256 ITR 1 (Delhi)(FB)] 3) JCIT Vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd.[258 ITR 126 (Gauhati)] 4) CIT Vs. Rajasthan Patrika Ltd. [258 ITR 300 (Raj)] 7 I.T.A. No. 192/Hyd/2019 & ITA No. 315/Hyd/2019 Union Bank of India,, Hyd. 5) Jindal Photo Films Ltd. Vs. DCIT [234 ITR 170 (Delhi)] 6) Garden Silk Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [237 ITR 668 (Guj)] 7) General Mrigendra S…

DCIT, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Arch Pharmalabs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6807/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asteroids Trading & Investments (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 190 , in which a reference was made to the decision of Full Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 11, in which the Hon'ble Court observed that when a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of section 143(3). a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed after application of mind. 21. Further it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Director General of Income-tax (Investigation) v. Spacewood Fu…

Arch Pharmalabas Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6656/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asteroids Trading & Investments (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 190 , in which a reference was made to the decision of Full Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 11, in which the Hon'ble Court observed that when a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of section 143(3). a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed after application of mind. 21. Further it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Director General of Income-tax (Investigation) v. Spacewood Fu…