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.

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3752/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

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 Imex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3751/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

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 Imex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3750/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

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 Imex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3749/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

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 Imex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3748/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2006-07

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…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai vs. Arch Pharmalabs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8090/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

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…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai vs. Arch Pharmalabs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8089/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2004-05

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 Pharmalabs Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7597/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

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 Pharmalabs Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7595/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

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…

DCIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh vs. Apeejay Education Society, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross objection

ITA 64/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shrir.L Negi

For Appellant: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CITFor Respondent: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate and Shri Sumit Lal Chandani Advocate
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “A”CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRIR.L NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.64/Chd/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2009-10 The DCIT, Apeejay Education society, बनाम Circle-1 (Exemptions), Jawahar Nagar, Chandigarh Jalandhar "थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AAAPA3534F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent C.O. No. 12/Chd/2017 (In ITA No. आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 64/Chd/2017) िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Apeejay Education society, The DCIT, बनाम Jawahar Nagar, Circle-1 (Exemptions), Jalandhar Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AAAPA3534F अपी…

Shri Rakesh Ambalal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(9), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 465/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 465/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

For Respondent: Shri L. P. Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 147Section 50C

…s pointed out that the aforesaid act of the AO is merely a ‘change of opinion’ in an existing fact on a completed assessment which is not permissible in law having regard to the plethora of judicial precedents including CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del)(FB). It was thus contended that having regard to the schematic interpretation to the expression ‘reason to believe’ used in Section 147 of the Act, the action of the AO in assuming jurisdiction under s.147 of the Act is arbitrary. It was asserted that having regard to the query raised in the context of capital gains arising to the assessee in…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-46, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8058/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Partially Through Video Conferencing) Dabur Invest Corp, The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax , Rouse Avenue, New Delhi Range-46, Pan: Aaadfd2529G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143Section 4

…e in the facts and terms of the joint venture agreement and such position attained finality. The assessment which were made scrutiny assessments u/s 143(3) of the Act, it cannot be said that the AO has not examined any issues nor has not applied his mind (See 256 ITR 1 [Del]) [FB], Kelvinator India Ltd. vs. CIT. (iii) In paragraph 10, the Revenue had quoted certain observation from the judgment in the case of State of Orissa vs. SudhanshuShekhar Mishra, 1968 AIR 647 (SC). There is no dispute about such observation and such observation is rather beneficial to the assessee . The assessee also states that without…

Gaurang Products Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-11(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 5196/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…ation of assessee that assessee received share application money from 11 Investors including the 03 mentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. The Hon’ble Full Bench of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd., 256 ITR 1 (FB) (Del.) held that “on mere change of opinion of A.O, cannot be a ground for re- assessment and that amendment of Section 147 w.e.f. 19 ITA.No.5196/Del./2019 M/s. Gaurang Products Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 01.04.1989 has not alter the position.” This decision have been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs., Kelvinator of India L…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 3768/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 143(3)Section 148

…on of the jurisdictional High Court (Delhi HC) that has been ratified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the reopening and the manner in which the foundation for the belief that “income has escaped assessment. In CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del) it was observed that an order that has been purportedly passed without application of mind could not itself confer jurisdiction upon the AO to reopen the proceeding “without anything further” as that would amount to “giving a premium to an authority exercising quasi-judicial function to take benefit of its own wrong”. Further, upholding this…

Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Jaipur vs. M/S Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust, Jaipur

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 960/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jan 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Add.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” 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. 960/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2008-09 cuke The ITO, (Exemption), M/s Apollo Animal Medical Vs. Ward-1, Group Trust, Jaipur. 299, Himmat Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABTA 0145 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@CO. No. 05/JP/2020 (Arising out of ITA No. 960/JP/2018) fu/kZkj.k…

Jagdish U. Thackersay, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5045/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Jagdish U. Thackersey, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 13, Sir Vithaldas Chambers Vs. (Circle) 2(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 16, Mumbai Samachar Marg, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Fort, Mumbai-400023. PAN No. AAFPT4701L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. K. Gopal, AR Revenue by : Ms. Usha Gaikwad, DR Date of Hearing : 29/12/2020 Date of Pronouncement : 11/01/2021 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relev…

M/S. Ue Development India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2381/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ett Packard Digital Global Soft Ltd. in ITA 406 & 407 of 2007 dt.19.09.2011 (Karnataka H.C.) (iii) CIT Vs. Hewlett Packard Digital Global Soft Ltd. 380 ITR 386 (Kar). (iv) CIT Vs. ;Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC( (v) CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 (Del) (vi) CIT Vs. Modipon Ltd. in ITA No.533 of 2011 Dt.21.03.2011 (Delhi H C) (vii) Madhukar Khosla Vs. ACIT 367 ITR 165 (Del) (viii) CIT Vs. Foramer France 264 ITR 566 (SC) (ix) CIT Vs. Tarajan Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. 236 ITR 477 (SC) (x) Fibres & Fabrics International (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 48 ITR (T)46 (Bangalore – Trib.) 4. According to the ld.AR that…

ACIT, Central Circle - 4(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Grd Commodities Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of assessee are allowed

ITA 2277/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] It(Ss)A Nos.120 To123/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2012-13

Section 132Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…y and every material, howsoever vague and indefinite or distant, remote and farfetched, which would warrant the formation of the belief relating to escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment.” 33. In CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1, the Full Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as under :- “31. In Bawa Abhai Singh"s case [2002] 253 ITR 83 (Delhi), a Division Bench of this court of which one of us (D. K. Jain J.) is a Member, clearly held (page 88) : "The crucial expression is "reason to believe". The expression predicates that the Assessing Officer must hold a belief . . .…

ITO 15 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Limbo Engineering P Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7277/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…he AO as per the reasons recorded, is not even aware that a scrutiny assessment has been made on an earlier occasion in the case of the assessee. The ld AR relied on the following decisions: Kelvinator of India Ltd – 320 ITR 561 (SC) Kelvinator of India Ltd – 256 ITR 1 (Del) TechSpan India P Ltd – 404 ITR 10 (SC) Century Textile & Industries Ltd – 99 taxmann.com 206 (SC) dismissing SLP against 99 taxmann.com 205 (Bom) Orient News Prints Ltd – 100 taxmann.com 69 (SC) dismissing SLP against 78 taxmann.com 108 (Guj) / 393 ITR 527 (Guj) ICICI Home Finance Co Ltd – 210 Taxman 67 (Bom),Usha International Ltd – 348 ITR…

DCIT Central Circle-7(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Wellknown Polysters Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1388/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…he AO as per the reasons recorded, is not even aware that a scrutiny assessment has been made on an earlier occasion in the case of the assessee. The ld AR relied on the following decisions: Kelvinator of India Ltd – 320 ITR 561 (SC) Kelvinator of India Ltd – 256 ITR 1 (Del) TechSpan India P Ltd – 404 ITR 10 (SC) Century Textile & Industries Ltd – 99 taxmann.com 206 (SC) dismissing SLP against 99 taxmann.com 205 (Bom) Orient News Prints Ltd – 100 taxmann.com 69 (SC) dismissing SLP against 78 taxmann.com 108 (Guj) / 393 ITR 527 (Guj) ICICI Home Finance Co Ltd – 210 Taxman 67 (Bom),Usha International Ltd – 348 ITR…