How many judgments cite CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.?

439 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (256 ITR 1), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 142(1), Section 153A, Section 151.

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 147 Section 148 Section 142(1)Section 153A Section 151 Section 153D Section 250

Issues it is cited on

kelvinator section 114 sanction under section 151 mere change of opinion first proviso to section 147 material facts necessary for assessment full and true disclosure within four years section 144a change of opinion live link tangible material

Judgments citing CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

The Income Tax Officer, Srinagar vs. Sh. Suhail Ahmed Bhat, Prop. M/S Shifa Traders, Rangparistan, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 136/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.136(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year:2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)For Respondent: Sh. Joginder Singh (Ld.CA)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

…hange of opinion and hence absence of jurisdiction of the AO to initiate proceedings under s. 147/148.Impugned notice quashed. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (Full Bench) in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd (2002) 256 ITR 1 in which it was held reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment is one of the conditions precedent for invoking the jurisdiction of the AO to reopen the assessment under s. 147.AO does not have any jurisdiction to review his own order. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. Thus, he cannot initiate p…

M/S. Tcg Lifesciences Private Limited.(Formerly Known As Tcg Lifesciences Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-11(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2261/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148

…1 TCG Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd, AY 2008-09 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 2261/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 TCG Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (PAN: AABCC0401D) Circle-11(2), Kolkata. Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 26.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement 08.03.2019 For the Appellant Shri A. K. Tibrewal, AR For the Respondent Shri A. K. Singh, CIT, DR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey…

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

…CIT vs. Usha International (2012) 348 ITR 485 (Del FB). The Full 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 ju…

Nripendra Chandra Modak & Co., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-45(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2245/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Ravinripendra Chandra Modak & Co., Vs Ito, 203/1, M.G.Road, Ward-45(2), 3, Kolkata-700007. Govt. Place (West), Pan-Aadfn8427F Kolkata-700001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. V.N.Purohit, Fca & Sh. H.V.Bhardwaj, Fca Respondent By Sh. Sankar Halder, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2019 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravithis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.08.2016 Passed By Cit(A)-13, Kolkata For Ay 2009-10 U/S 147/143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”).

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “A”, KOLKATA BEFORE SH. P.M.JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT & SH.S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Nripendra Chandra Modak & Co., vs ITO, 203/1, M.G.Road, Ward-45(2), 3, Kolkata-700007. Govt. Place (West), PAN-AADFN8427F Kolkata-700001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. V.N.Purohit, FCA & Sh. H.V.Bhardwaj, FCA Respondent by Sh. Sankar Halder, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 29.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement 26.02.2019 ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 03.08.2016 passed by CIT(A)-13, Kolka…

Pushp Steels & Mining (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6094/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR) &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153(1)Section 68

…ssment proceedings – reassessment not permissible – Income Tax Act, 1961 as ss. 10A, 147, 148.” 6.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) [affirming CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) (FB)] J. Kapadia held that the concept of ‘change of opinion’ must be treated as an in-built test to check abuse of power by Assessing Officer and that the reasons must have a live link with formation of belief. 6.4 Coming to the other observation which is so called material in support of formation of belief under section 147, the AO has…

ACIT, Circle - 10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Vesuvius India Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2332/KOL/2017[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2018AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:1999-00

Section 114Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…stified as there was no fresh material fact s available before the AO and that the same was change of opinion on pat of the Assessing Officer. For the above submissions reliance has been placed on the decision in CIT – vs. – Kelvinator of India Limited (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del)(FB),, Amiya Sales & Industries –vs. – Asstt.CIT (2005) 274itr 25 (Cal) as well as Jagatdal Jut & Industries Ltd. – vs. – DCIT (2004) 91 TTJ 770 (Kol) and Pressman Advertising & Marketing Ltd. – vs.- ACIT (2004) 90 TTJ 483 (Kol) etc. It was further submitted that in the Appellant’s case, there was no change of law and no fresh material had com…

S.Praveen Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO Ward 1 (Tiruvallur), Kancheepuram

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1905/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1905/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012. Shri. S. Praveen Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.33/3, Ground Floor, Ward I, (Tiruvallur), Veerappan Street, Kancheepuram. Sowcarpet, Chennai 600 001. [Pan Aaipp 9343H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sriniranjani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Clement Ramesh Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 148

…s of the opinion . . . ". This amendment was brought about, as, according to the Revenue, it wanted to allay the apprehensions of the assessees that reopening of assessment could be made on a mere change of opinion. (See CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] ; [2002] 99 DLT 221). 18.6. Thus, in other words, reassessment can only take place, if there is tangible material available in the hands of the Assessing Officer in the form of information, which was not available to him at an earlier point in time. 19. In the instant case, the reasons supplied by respondent No. 2 vide communication da…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the reassessment is held to be bad in law the appeal of the assessee on this point is allowed

ITA 2403/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Dcit Circle -1 (1), 5Th Floor, Jindal Centre Vs 12, Bhikaji Cama Place Hsidc Building, New Delhi – 110066 Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog Pan : Aaacj7097D Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 80Section 801A

…d has accepted this as he states that “ a perusal of the assessment records reveals”. This issue is well settled in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Limited reported 256 ITR 1. 16. As mentioned elsewhere the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dates 24.03.2015 is bad in law as the same has been issued before recoding the reasons as explained elsewhere. The Hon’ble of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of K. G. Madan reported in 275 ITR 294 has held that “accordingly, the Tribunal held that notice u/s 148 of the Act was…

Uma Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Centrl Circle-3, New Delhi

ITA 1484/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…s herein were bogus was found in course of search in the case of the Assessees. iv. At this juncture, it would also be very relevant to quote from the order of the Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (Del) (FB) reported in [2002] 256 ITR 1 which although rendered in context of section 147 is also applicable to the facts of the present case in context of the principles enunciated by the Hon‘ble Court: “It is not in dispute that the Assessing Officer does not have any jurisdiction to review his own order. His jurisdiction is confined only to rectification of mistakes as contained in se…

Ritu Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 1481/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

Brijendra Nath Agarwal, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1666/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1666/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Brijendra Nath Agarwal, Mzsk & Associates, Chartered Accountants Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Near Rto, Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aawpa9005D Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 2(1), Pune

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.1666/PUN/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Brijendra Nath Agarwal, MZSK & Associates, Chartered Accountants Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Near RTO, Pune – 411001 …. PAN: AAWPA9005D Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 2(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.1667/…

Agarwal Group Corporate Holding P. Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1667/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

The Kadiyan Coop. L&C Society Ltd., Panipat vs. ACIT, Circle Panipat, Panipat

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 667/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishithe Kadiyan Coop L&C Society Vs. Acit, Ltd, Circle Panipat V&Po Sewah, Panipat, Haryana Pan: Aaalt0541R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Aneja, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 155Section 80

…proceedings could not have been started on the basis of the same materials. 37. As rightly pointed out by Dr. Pal mere change of opinion was no ground for reassessment, as held by a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 cited by Dr. Pal. 38. In Damodar H. Shah v. Asst. CIT reported in [2000] 245 ITR 774 a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court lucidly explained the difference between the power of rectification of a mistake under section 154 and the power of reopening assessment under section 147 of the 1961 Act and held that the scope of the two proceedings bei…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Yamaha Motor India Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 992/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2006-07] The Dy. C.I.T, Vs. M/S Yamaha Motor India Sales Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor Circle 18 (1), New Delhi. The Great Eastern Centre 70, Nehru Place, Behind Ifci Tower New Delhi [Pan : Aaacy 2505 K] [A.Y 2006-07] M/S Yamaha Motor India Sales Vs. The Dy.C.I.T, Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor Circle 18 (1), The Great Eastern Centre New Delhi. 70, Nehru Place, Behind Ifci Tower, New Delhi [Pan : Aaacy 2505 K] [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2018 Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Adv

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT- DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32Section 92

…angible material evidence which prompted the Assessing Officer to issue notice for reopening of the assessment. For this proposition, we derive support from the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd 256 ITR 1 which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 320 ITR 561. 11. In his reasons for reopening the assessment, the Assessing Officer had observed that the assessee had claimed and allowed advertisement expenses of Rs. 23.31 crores out of which the assessee was reimbursed Rs. 10.97 crores and balance of Rs. 11.50 crores has been shown under the he…

M/S. Yamaha Motor India Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1095/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT- DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32Section 92

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…arge is deferred to a future date: a) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.: 37 ITR 1 (SC) b) Metal Box (P) Limited (1969): 73 ITR 53 (SC) c) United Commercial Bank v. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC) d) Bharat Earth Movers: 245 ITR 428 (SC) e) Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1 confirmed by SC in 320 ITR 561 f) CIT v Vinitec Corpn. (P) Ltd.: 278 ITR 337 (Delhi) g) National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. JCIT : 98 ITD 278 (Hyd. ITAT) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. 312 ITR 254 has held that:- “21. In conclusion, we may state that in order to find out if an g) exp…

Landmark Education India, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) II (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4871/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2008-09 Landmark Education India, Income Tax Officer B-206, Bhaveshwar Plaza, (Exemption)-Ii(1), बनाम/ Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai 400086 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaatl0059L

Section 11Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1989] 177 ITR 124 (Bom) (para 21) CIT v. DLF Power Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 446 (Delhi) (para 14) CIT v. Eicher Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) (paras 10, 28) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] (paras 2, 12, 20, 48) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) (paras 2, 28) CIT v. Khemchand Ramdas [1938] 6 ITR 414 (PC) (para 50) CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) (para 18) CIT (Asst.) v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) (paras 4, 12) CIT v. Sharma (H. P.) [1980] 122 I…

Jyoti Apparels vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/298/2006HC Delhi06 Sept 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 80Section 80H

…ry to law. A further argument was that the re-assessment was based upon a mere change of opinion and therefore, impermissible in view of the then prevailing Full Bench ruling of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., (2002) 256 ITR 1. The judgment has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). In this case, the assessee filed its return which was processed under Section 143(1) and an intimation was sent on 18.12.2001, for Assessment Year 2000-01. Subsequently, the A.O. recorded satisfaction, a…

ITO, Khurda vs. Bularam Dalai, Khurda

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 294/CTK/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Panda/Bhimsen Sahoo, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कटक "यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.294/CTK/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-2010) ITO, Khurda Ward, Khurda Vs. Shri Bularam Dalai, Ichhapur, Baulabamha, Khurda, PIN -752034 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AEPPD 0693 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri B.R.Panda/Bhimsen Sahoo, AR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 27/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement…

Ambuja Cement India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2600/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri. Soumen Adak &For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 234B

…of closing stock may have to be different would not justify a reassessment notice after four years. 3.19] In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Kelvinator of India Limited (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del)(FB) wherein it has been held that initiation of re-assessment proceedings on the basis of information in the Tax Audit Report is not acceptable since the same was submitted by the appellant along with the return of income. It is one thing to say that the AO had received information I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 from an audit report which was not…