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 367,164 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.

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

ITA 2277/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa R. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri L.K.S. Dehiya-DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 254(1)Section 37Section 40

…t there was no amount to be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of non-deduction of tax at source u/s.194J, that the facts in the case under consideration left no scope for any other interpretation. He referred to cases of Kelvinator of India Ltd (256 ITR 1),NYK line (India) Ltd. (346 ITR 361), Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. (41 ITR 191) and observed that mere change of opinion in the mind of the AO could not be basis for forming reason to believe, that the section 147 did not empower the AO to review the assessment order on the same facts,that fresh application of mind by AO on similar facts would ta…

Rajeev Ranjan, Nalanda vs. I.T.O., Ward 2(3), Biharsharif

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 123/PAT/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 123/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Rajeev Ranjan, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O Sita Ram Singh, Garhpar, Ward-2(3), Bihar Sharif, Nalanda-803101 Bihar Sharif (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agcpr5450R Assessee By : Sh. A. K. Rastogi & Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Advs. Revenue By : Sh. Abhay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 16 .03.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.06.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Patna.

For Appellant: Sh. A. K. Rastogi &For Respondent: Sh. Abhay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234B

…hat no direct or circumstantial evidence was referred to by the AO who acted on mere suspicion, gossip and rumour. The reliance was placed on the judgment of the full Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported at 256 ITR 1 which had been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in 320 ITR 561. It was accordingly submitted that the reassessment may be annulled. 6. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the assessment in this case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act after recording the reasons for the same which was communi…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the Cross Objection raised by assessee stands allowed

ITA 4181/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2002-03 Acit, Circle 7(1) Vs. Samsung India Room No.312, 3Rd Floor Electronics P Ltd. Cr Building Ip Estate 3Rd Floor, Vipul Tech New Delhi Square Gurgaon Pan: Aaacs5123K Cross Objection No.363/Del/2011 (In Ita No. 4181/Del/2011) Ay: 2002-03 Samsung India Electronics P Ltd. Vs. Acit,Circle 7(1) Gurgaon New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 201

…ial, that has been unearthed by Ld.A.O. It has been submitted that the additions are based on the materials already available on record. Ld.AR placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator India Ltd reported in 256 ITR 1 which has been upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 320 ITR 561. Thus Ld.AR submitted that the reassessment proceedings are bad in law and void ab initio. 3.4. Ld. DR on the contrary placed reliance upon the findings of Ld. CIT (A) on the legality of the reassessment proceedings. 4. We have perused the submissions advanced by both the sides…

Baijnath Melaram, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7000/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramt Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Baijnath Melaram, Acit, Range-14(3), C/O Mangaldas D. Shah & Co., बनाम/ Mumbai. 506, Lotus House, 5Th Floor, Vs. 33-A, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaafb 2675 E याजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Dhirendra M. Shah - Ar यनधाारयती की ओर से / Revenue By Shri T.A. Khan - Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2018 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh ()

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 194C

…show tentatively or prima facie on the basis of the reasons recorded and with reference to the documents available on record that income has escaped assessment.” 18 This takes us to the observations of the Delhi High Court in Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] which read as under (page 18): "The Board in exercise of its jurisdiction under the aforementioned provisions had issued the circular on October 31, 1989. The said circular admittedly is binding on the Revenue. The authority, therefore, could not have taken a view, which would run counter to the mandate of the said circular.” From a p…

Export Import Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6847/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2003-04 Export Import Bank Of Acit-3(1), India, Centre One Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Building, Floor 21, World, Road Trade Centre Complex, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 Pan No. Aaace2769D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Dinesh Vyas, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Mrs. Vidisha Kalra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Dinesh Vyas, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Vidisha Kalra, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…rking for deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) based on his directions (page 20-24 of the P/B). Therefore, the case of the appellant is distinguishable from the above decision relied on by the Ld. DR. 7.2 A Full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Kelvinator 256 ITR 1 held that even after the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act 1987, (i) the AO must have ‘reason to believe’ that income has escaped assessment, (ii) a mere change of opinion does not justify a re- assessment and (iii) the AO does not have the power of review on the same set of facts and law. The re-assessment proceedings cannot be initiated by the AO w…

Maharashtra Stae Road Development Corporation Td, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 4900/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…ssessing Officer and he chooses not to deal with the same, it cannot be said that he had not applied his mind to all the material before him. Further, as observed by the Full Bench of Delhi High Court in the matter of C.I.T. v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1/ 123 Taxman 433, when the entire material is placed before the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment and he passes an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act a presumption can be raised that he applied his mind to all the facts involved in the assessment. 8. Therefore, in the present facts one would have to examine the cont…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4519/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

Dy.C.I.T. 1, Bhilai(Cg) vs. M/S Ravi Shree Narayan Transport, Bhilai(Cg)

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 200/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68

…on financial charges. The Assessing Officer made some lumpsum disallowance under the above heads. 13. 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, 256 ITR 1(Del) , wherein, it has been held that held that an order which has been passed purportedly without application of mind would itself confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to reopen the proceeding without anything further, the same would amount to giving a premium to an authority exercising quasi-judicial function to take benefit of its ow…

Dy.C.I.T. 1, Bhilai(Cg) vs. M/S Ravi Shree Narayan Transport, Bhilai(Cg)

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 199/BIL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68

The Dy. CIT- 1, Durg(Cg) vs. M/S. Ravi Shree Narayan Transport, Bhilai(Cg)

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 116/BIL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68

Blue Star Infotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5380/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Blue Star Infotech Ltd. Dcit Circle-6(1), 8Th Floor, The Great Oasis, Plot No. Mumbai. D-13, Midc, Andheri (East), Vs. Mumbai-400093. Pan: Aaacb6385J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan (DR)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Blue Star Infotech Ltd. DCIT Circle-6(1), 8th Floor, The Great Oasis, Plot No. Mumbai. D-13, MIDC, Andheri (East), Vs. Mumbai-400093. PAN: AAACB6385J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri S.S. Tiwari with Ms. : Rutuja N. Pawar (AR) Revenue by : Shri T.A. Khan (DR) Date of hearing : 14.12.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee under section 253 of the Incom…

Wallace Sports and Research Foundation, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 3, Chennai

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

ITA 2057/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R

Section 143(3)

…cer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the first proviso to sec.147 of the Act. 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 Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd.(256 ITR 1) and the full Bench observed thus, "The said submission is fallacious. An order of assessment can be passed either in terms of sub-s. (1) of s. 143 or sub-s. (3) of s. 143. When a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of the said sub-s. (3) of s. 143, a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind.…

Santech Solutons Pvt Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as 9

ITA 1036/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1036/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 28

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1036/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2008-2009 M/s. Santech Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Old No.268, New No.25, Income Tax, Lloyds Road, Company Circle VI(1) Royapettah, Chennai. Chennai 600 014 [PAN AAICS 4314G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. D. Anand, Advoca…

M/S Paramount Properties & Estate Developments Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 93/KOL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedi.T.A. No.93/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2005-06 M/S. Paramount Properties & I.T.O., Wd-3(1), Kolkata. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Estate Developments Ltd. -Vs- Kolkata – 700 069. 3, Pretoria Street, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. [Pan : Aabcp 8731 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…y assessment. Then, at any point of time after expiry of time the AO can reopen assessments. That would plainly be against the statutory policy. Therefore, the impugned notice and proceedings are quashed and set aside. • CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Del)(FB): It was, inter-alia, held in this case 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 on application of mind. It is well-known that a presumption can also be raised to the effect that in terms of section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, j…

P Praveen Kumar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2212/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.RFor Respondent: 21.11.2017

Section 143(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, B/‘SMC’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B/“SMC” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी. चं" पूजार" लेखा सद"य , के सम" । BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.2212/Mds./2017 (Assessment Year : 2010-11 ) Shri P.Praveen Kumar, The DCIT, Vs. 443, (N.138) Mint street, Non-corporate circle 5(1), Sowcarpet, Chennai-79. Chennai-6. PAN AAPPP 8156 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr.S.Sridhar,Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : 21.11.2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of hearing : 06.12.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of…

The ACIT, Circle-7, Ahmedabad vs. The Ahmedabad District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

ITA 25/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri, Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Jayant Jhaveri, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri A. N. Shah, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…inion. It is, therefore, submitted that duly finalized assessment cannot be re-opened on the basis of change of opinion. 4. It is submitted that our claim as stated above is duly supported by the following judgments: (i) CIT v. Kelvmator of India Ltd. [(2002) 256 ITR 1 (Delhi-FB)] (ii) Saurashtra Cement & Chem. Ind. Ltd. v. CIT [(1995) 213 ITR 523 (Guj)] (iii) DClT v. Pasupati Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. [(2010) 6 ITR (Trib) 789 (Del)] Copies of gists of above judgments are enclosed herewith. 5. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that proposed re- opening is not based on valid reasons because the deducti…

DCIT Cir 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA 5739/Mum/2015 for assessment year 2009-10 is allowed

ITA 5739/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 5739/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri. P.R. TopraniFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260ASection 80Section 80I

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “C” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 5739/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) बिाम/ DCIT CIR 6(2)(1) Century Textiles & R.No. 563 Aayakar Bhavan, Industries Ltd., M.K Road, Mumbai 400020 Century Bhavan, v. 2n d floor, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai 400030 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AAACC2659Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue by : Shri Rajat Mittal Assessee by: Shri. P.R. Toprani सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Heari…

K.R.Jayaram, Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1698/CHNY/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Arjunraj, C.A ""For Respondent: Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…duced before the AO at the stage of the original assessment proceedings, therefore reopening of assessment is only mere change of opinion, which is not permissible. In view of the judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1 (Del.) and Usha International Ltd., in 210 Taxman 188. Further, ld.A.R relied on the following judgments. i) Dishman Pharmaceuticals And Chemicals Ltd. Vs. DCIT in [2012] 346 ITR 245 (Guj) ii) CIT Vs. Ashley Services Ltd. in [2014] 369 ITR 209 (Mad) iii) Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd. Vs. ACIT in [2006] 287 ITR 25 (Mad) iv) Debashis Moulik…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Gd Goenka Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6553/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. M/S. G.D. Goenka Pvt. Ltd., N- Acit, Circle-10(2), New Delhi 85, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan : Aaacg0865A (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 79/Del/2016 (In Ita No. 6553/Del/2015) Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…out carrying his own enquiry in the case. Thirdly, reopening was based on change of opinion of the Assessing Officer. In support, the ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited, (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Delhi), which has been further upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 320 ITR 561 (SC) C.O. No. 79/Del/2016 6. In view of the arguments, the learned counsel submitted that reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated and, therefore, same should be held as illegal and quashed. 7. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the information…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Harish Chander Khullar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3758/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahua.Y. : 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Sh. Harish Chander Khullar, Ward 27(2), Vs. E-88-B, Mansarover Garden, Room No. 1909, New Delhi – 110 015 E-2 Block, Civic Centre, (Pan: Aafpk8788A) Minto Road, New Delhi – 110 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 54B

…arried out earlier. Therefore, on this account also, the reassessment proceedings in the case of assessee was not valid. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002 256 ITR 1 (Del.). Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly quashed the reassessment order dated 28.3.2013. However, we note that the Revenue has not challenged this legal ground of appeal before the Tribunal, as a result thereof, the Revenue’s Appeal stands dismissed on the legal ground itself. Even otherwise, on merit also, it is noted that during the rele…