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.

Standard Chartered Investments & Loans (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

ITA 7068/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7068/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna & MsFor Respondent: Mrs. Snita Billa, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ent order was made was inadvertently excluded from consideration. This will, in our opinion, amount to opening of the assessment merely because there is change of opinion. The Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in its judgment in the case of Kelvinator [2002] 256 ITR 1 referred to above, has taken a clear view that reopening of assessment under Section 147 merely because there is a change of opinion cannot be allowed. In our opinion, therefore, in the present case also, it was not permissible for respondent No. 1 to issue notice under Section 148. 14. We also draw strength from the decision of Coordinate Bench of…

The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. Ltu, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2551/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2551&2129/Mum/2012 नििाारण वर्ा/Asstt. Year:2006-07 The Shipping Corporation Of Additional Commissioner India Ltd. Vs. Of Income Tax Ltu Shipping House, 10Th Floor, 245, 29Th Floor, World Trade Madam Cama Road, Nariman Centre, Colaba, Mumbai- Point, Mumbai-400021 400006 Pan: Aaa Ct1 524 F Assistant Commissioner Of The Shipping Corporation Income Tax Ltu Of India Ltd. Centre-I, 28Th Floor, World Trade Shipping House, 10Th Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- Floor, 245, Madam Cama 400005 Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan: Aaa Ct1 524 F

For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234D

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’E’’ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2551&2129/MUM/2012 नििाारण वर्ा/Asstt. Year:2006-07 The Shipping Corporation of Additional Commissioner India Ltd. Vs. of Income Tax LTU Shipping House, 10th Floor, 245, 29th Floor, World Trade Madam Cama Road, Nariman Centre, Colaba, Mumbai- Point, Mumbai-400021 400006 PAN: AAA CT1 524 F Assistant Commissioner of The Shipping Corporation Income Tax LTU of India Ltd. Centre-I, 28th Floor, World Trade Shipping House,…

Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2129/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2551&2129/Mum/2012 नििाारण वर्ा/Asstt. Year:2006-07 The Shipping Corporation Of Additional Commissioner India Ltd. Vs. Of Income Tax Ltu Shipping House, 10Th Floor, 245, 29Th Floor, World Trade Madam Cama Road, Nariman Centre, Colaba, Mumbai- Point, Mumbai-400021 400006 Pan: Aaa Ct1 524 F Assistant Commissioner Of The Shipping Corporation Income Tax Ltu Of India Ltd. Centre-I, 28Th Floor, World Trade Shipping House, 10Th Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- Floor, 245, Madam Cama 400005 Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan: Aaa Ct1 524 F

For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234D

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’E’’ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2551&2129/MUM/2012 नििाारण वर्ा/Asstt. Year:2006-07 The Shipping Corporation of Additional Commissioner India Ltd. Vs. of Income Tax LTU Shipping House, 10th Floor, 245, 29th Floor, World Trade Madam Cama Road, Nariman Centre, Colaba, Mumbai- Point, Mumbai-400021 400006 PAN: AAA CT1 524 F Assistant Commissioner of The Shipping Corporation Income Tax LTU of India Ltd. Centre-I, 28th Floor, World Trade Shipping House,…

Anil T. Mehra, Mumbai vs. ITO-24(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment years 2009-

ITA 4139/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Acit 24(1), Anil Tilakraj Mehra, Room No. 604, 6Th Floor, 204, Madhu Industrial Estate, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Old Nagardas Road, Mumbai - 400012 Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400069 Pan: Aahpm1904A (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anil Tilakraj Mehra, The Income Tax Officer- 204, Madhu Industrial Estate, 24(1)(2), Old Nagardas Road, Piramal Chamber, Andheri (E), Vs. Room No. 605, Lalbaug, Mumbai - 400069 Mumbai - 12 Pan: Aahpm1904A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Phadkar/Kalpesh TuralkarFor Respondent: Satishchandra Rajore (DRs)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The ACIT 24(1), Anil Tilakraj Mehra, Room No. 604, 6th Floor, 204, Madhu Industrial Estate, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Old Nagardas Road, Mumbai - 400012 Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400069 PAN: AAHPM1904A (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anil Tilakraj Mehra, The Income Tax Officer- 204, Madhu Industrial Estate, 24(1)(2), Old Nagardas Road, Piramal Chamber, Andheri (E), Vs. Room No. 605, Lalbaug, Mumbai - 400069 Mumbai - 12 PAN: AAHPM1904A (Appel…

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. Anil Tilakraj Mehra, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment years 2009-

ITA 5652/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Acit 24(1), Anil Tilakraj Mehra, Room No. 604, 6Th Floor, 204, Madhu Industrial Estate, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Old Nagardas Road, Mumbai - 400012 Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400069 Pan: Aahpm1904A (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anil Tilakraj Mehra, The Income Tax Officer- 204, Madhu Industrial Estate, 24(1)(2), Old Nagardas Road, Piramal Chamber, Andheri (E), Vs. Room No. 605, Lalbaug, Mumbai - 400069 Mumbai - 12 Pan: Aahpm1904A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Phadkar/Kalpesh TuralkarFor Respondent: Satishchandra Rajore (DRs)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The ACIT 24(1), Anil Tilakraj Mehra, Room No. 604, 6th Floor, 204, Madhu Industrial Estate, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Old Nagardas Road, Mumbai - 400012 Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400069 PAN: AAHPM1904A (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anil Tilakraj Mehra, The Income Tax Officer- 204, Madhu Industrial Estate, 24(1)(2), Old Nagardas Road, Piramal Chamber, Andheri (E), Vs. Room No. 605, Lalbaug, Mumbai - 400069 Mumbai - 12 PAN: AAHPM1904A (Appel…

Bipin Mangalji Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4115/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148

…f reopening the escapement of income need not be proved to be hilt. Moreover, reopening is duly related to tangible material which has come to the possession of the Assessing Officer. The case law of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (256 ITR 1) also supports the validity of reopening on this account. Other case laws referred by learned counsel are not applicable. Moreover, since I am deciding this issue on the basis of Hon'ble Apex Court decision referred above, other decisions are not germane. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the validity of reopening in this case. Hence, the asses…

DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4395/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhdcit-14(2)(1) M/S Idea Cellular Ltd. 432, 4Th Floor, (Successor To M/S. Spice Communications Ltd.), 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, East Wing, Windsor Off. Cst Mumbai 400020 Road, Kalina, Near Vidya Nagari, Kalina, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 098 Pan – Aagcs6070H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop With Shri M.K. Singh (Dr) Respondent By : Ms. Krupa Gandhi With Vidhi Doshi (Ar)

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Swaroop with Shri M.K. Singh (DR)For Respondent: Ms. Krupa Gandhi with Vidhi Doshi (AR)
Section 127Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 254(1)Section 37

…ntal. Thus, merely non-discussion of the issue does not mean that the assessing officer has not applied his mind. In support of his submission the learned AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in CIT versus Kalvinator of India limited 256 ITR 1 (Delhi High Court), Idea cellular versus DCIT (supra ) Aroni Commercials Ltd versus DCIT (supra ) ACIT versus Rolta India Ltd [2011] 132 ITD 98(Mumbai). 10. The learned AR of the assessee finally submitted that on similar set of Mumbai tribunal in Instant Holding Ltd versus ACIT (supra) also held 9 ITA No. 4395 Mum 2016-M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.…

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 3327/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…nsfer pricing assessments in the case of, both, the Appellant and LGEIL, after due and proper verification of the facts of the case cannot be disregarded, as held by the Full bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Limited 256 ITR 1 at page 19 as under: “ When a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of the said sub-section (3) of section 143 a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind. It is well known that a presumption can also be raised to the effect that in terms of clause (e) of section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, judicia…

M/S. Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Noida

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 1946/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…nsfer pricing assessments in the case of, both, the Appellant and LGEIL, after due and proper verification of the facts of the case cannot be disregarded, as held by the Full bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Limited 256 ITR 1 at page 19 as under: “ When a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of the said sub-section (3) of section 143 a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind. It is well known that a presumption can also be raised to the effect that in terms of clause (e) of section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, judicia…

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- Noida, International Taxation, Noida

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 6916/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…nsfer pricing assessments in the case of, both, the Appellant and LGEIL, after due and proper verification of the facts of the case cannot be disregarded, as held by the Full bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Limited 256 ITR 1 at page 19 as under: “ When a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of the said sub-section (3) of section 143 a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind. It is well known that a presumption can also be raised to the effect that in terms of clause (e) of section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, judicia…

M/S Chhaganlal Agarwal, Chaibasa vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Chaibasa

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 319/RAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.319/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S Chhaganlal Agarwal, Vs. Ito Ward-3(4), Chaibasa Bari Bazar, Chaibasa-833201 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaffc 6053 J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 40

…im during the course of original assessment proceedings. In our opinion, it is a clear case of change of opinion by the Assessing Officer which is not sustainable as per the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 256 ITR 1, which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in [2010] 320 ITR 561(SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under :- “Heard learned counsel on both sides. 2. A short question which arises for determination in this batch of civil appeals is, whether the concept of "change of opinion" stands obliterated with effect fro…

Sri Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Bokaro vs. DCIT Circle-2, Hzb

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 89/RAN/2018[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 Aug 2019

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri D.C.Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…nt Year : 2010 -2011 Officer has reopened the assessment u/s.147 of the Act. We also find that on the question of change of opinion, the law is well settled by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., (2002) 256 ITR 1, which has been upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) It has been held as under: "On going through the changes, quoted above, made to Section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re-opening could be done under above two conditions and fulfillment of the said conditions alone c…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(2), Mumbai vs. Khyati Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, therefore, petition succeeds and is allowed

ITA 4710/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh , Jm Dcit, Cir. 6(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Khyati Realtors Pvt.Ltd R.No.522, 5Th Floor 301/68, Manek Bhuvan 1St Hindu Colony Aayakar Bhavan M.K.Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 014 Pan/Gir No.Aacck4422B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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

…ly his mind to the material which, according to him, is relevant and which was available on record. We find that this situation has been considered by the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in its judgment in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 and the Full Bench has observed thus (page 19): The said submission is fallacious. An order of assessment can be passed either in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 143 or Sub-section (3) of Section 143. When a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of the said Sub-section (3) of Section 143 a presumption can be raised that such an order h…

Kenersys India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 943/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14A

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “ए” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य, एवं श्री ववकास अवस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.943/PUN/2017 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 KGEPL Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (formerly known as Kenersys India Pvt. Ltd.), S. No. 49, Industry House, Mundhwa, Pune – 411036 PAN : AADCK2089H .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 14, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil P…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5191/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit-Circle 3(1) Icici Bank Limited बनाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor नाम/ नाम नाम Icici Bank Towers Aaykar Bhavan Bandra-Kurla Complex Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-1195-H (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.127/Mum/2010 [Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Icici Bank Limited Dcit-Circle 3(1) बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor Icici Bank Towers Bandra-Kurla Complex Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci 1195 H (""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप /Cross Objector) ""ा"ेप (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray -Ld.DR
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35DSection 36(1)(vii)

…ot postulate ICICI Bank Limited Assessment Year-2004-05 conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon a mere change of opinion as has been held by the Delhi High Court (FB) in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India (256 ITR 1) and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 320 ITR 561. 2.1 Facts in brief are that the assessee being resident corporate assessee stated to be engaged in the business of Banking and Finance was subjected to re-assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the impugned AY vide order dated 25/02/2009 wherein the…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Kakrania Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and cross objections of Assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 2144/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Dcit, C.C -2(1), Kolkata Vs M/S. Kakrania Properties Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aadck 6121C ( Department ) (Respondent) C.O No. 91/Kol/2017 [Ita No. 2144/Kol/2017 A.Y : 2009-10] M/S. Kankaria Properties Pvt. Ltd Vs Dcit, C.C -2(1), Kolkata Pan: Aadck 6121C ( Cross Objector ) ( Department ) Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acit, C.C -2(1), Kolkata Vs M/S. Liza Vincom Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aaacl-5419R Department. (Respondent) C.O No. 90/Kol/2017 [Ita No. 2145/Kol/2017 A.Y : 2009-10] M/S. Liza Vincom Pvt. Ltd Vs Acit, C.C -2(1), Kolkata Pan: Aaacl-5419R ( Cross Objector ) ( Department )

For Appellant: S/Shri R.P. Agarwal, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 43(1)(a)Section 68

…by which the AO holds “reasons to believe” and change of opinion does not confer jurisdiction to reassess; - There must be nexus between material and belief; and - Reasons recorded must show application of mind by the AO. 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 ITA No.2144/K/17 & CO No. 91/K/17 A.Y 2009-10 ITA No.2145/K/17 & CO No. 90/K/17 A.Y 2009-10 In the cases of Kakrania Properties P.Ltd & Or. . 14 passe…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3723/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…at the law that an assessment could not be reopened on a change of opinion was the same before and after the amendment by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987. The Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd: 256 ITR 1 (Del) held that ‘section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the assessing officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon his mere change of opinion’. The Full Bench of the Delhi High Court also took into account Circular No.549 dated 31.10.1989 issued by CBDT explaining the scope of amended section 147 of the Act. ITA No…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3722/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…at the law that an assessment could not be reopened on a change of opinion was the same before and after the amendment by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987. The Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd: 256 ITR 1 (Del) held that ‘section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the assessing officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon his mere change of opinion’. The Full Bench of the Delhi High Court also took into account Circular No.549 dated 31.10.1989 issued by CBDT explaining the scope of amended section 147 of the Act. ITA No…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2310/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…at the law that an assessment could not be reopened on a change of opinion was the same before and after the amendment by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987. The Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd: 256 ITR 1 (Del) held that ‘section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the assessing officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon his mere change of opinion’. The Full Bench of the Delhi High Court also took into account Circular No.549 dated 31.10.1989 issued by CBDT explaining the scope of amended section 147 of the Act. ITA No…

Shri Manak Chand Modi, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Jaipur

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

ITA 1067/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Anuradha (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 154Section 234B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1067/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2008-09 cuke Shri Manak Chand Modi The DCIT, Vs. D-185, Mangal Marg, Bapu Nagar, Circle-7, Jaipur-302015. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADDPM 4856 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. An…