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 367,154 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.

Crr Leathers, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 616/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.616/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 M/S. Crr Leathers, The Income Tax Officer, 9/5, Patnool Sardarjung Street, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 4(3), Periamet, Chennai 600 003. Chennai 600 006. [Pan: Aaafc4173G] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai Dated 27.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09, Wherein, In The Grounds Appeal, Besides Challenging The Confirmation Of Various Additions For Want Of Tds Under Section 195 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], The Assessee Has Mainly Challenged Confirmation Of Reopening Of Assessment, Which Is Barred By Limitation.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40

…217/2015 dated 2.6.2015, wherein in a similar matter, this Court has held as under :- "16. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Del), wherein, the Delhi High Court held as follows: “We are unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Jolly to the effect that the impugned order of reassessment cannot be faulted as the same was based on information derived from the tax audit report. The tax audit report had already been submitted by the assessee. It is one thing to say that th…

D.C.I.T., Circle-10, Kolkata vs. M/S Vatican Commercial Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2623/KOL/2013[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…d on an information which might have been received by the Assessing Officer after completion of assessment, it may be a sound foundation for exercising power under section 147, read with section 148 – CIT –vs.- Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 123 Taxman 433 / 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) (FB). Moreover, there is nothing in section 147 to suggest that an Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment where he had failed to investigate and find out truth at initial stage - Ram Prasad v. ITO [1995] 82 Taxman 199 (All). However, the action under section 147 can be taken only on the basis of rules mentioned supra. From the foreg…

ACIT, Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Neelachal Gramya Bank, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection

ITA 58/CTK/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mohapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 22Section 36Section 44ASection 80PSection 80P(4)

…lowing judgments arc also relied upon: C.O. No. 13/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year:20 08- 09 i. D.T.& T.D.C Ltd. vs CIT (2010) 324 1TR 234 (Del) ii. Sadhab Engineering vs DCIT, 2010 9ITI) GJX 378 (Guj) iii. CIT vs. Kelvenator India Ltd. 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi FB) 256 ITR 1 iv. CIT vs Alagendran Finance Ltd (2007) 162 Taxman 465 (SC) v. Asteroids Trading & Investment P.Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 308 ITR 190 (Bom) (No new material brought on records - Re-assemment on change of opinion of officer not valid) vi. Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2008) 308 ITR 195 (Bom) vii. Aventis Pharma Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 570 (Bom) viii…

M/S Shree Saibaba Construction, Nagpur vs. CIT-IV, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 292/NAG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…er dated 30.12.2011 passed by the AO is erroneous. Further, as the same has resulted in loss of tax the order is also prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5.3. In its written submission, the assessee has quoted the case of CIT v/s Kelvinator of India Ltd (256 ITR 1) and two other cases. The same are not relevant here. The said cases relate to reassessment proceedings to the effect that a mere change in the opinion would not confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to initiate a proceeding under section 147. It has been held in the said case that “It is a well-settled principle of law that what cannot be…

Pitney Bowes India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, out of the five appeals of the assessee, the ITA Nos

ITA 289/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 289 to 293/Del/2013 Assessment Years: 2005-06 to 2009-10 Vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1) / Addl.CIT, M/s. Pitney Bowes India (P) Ltd., 2nd Floor, 45, Okhla Industrial Range-14 / Income Tax Officer, Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi Ward -14(3), New Delhi PAN : AADCP3417C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by S/sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv.; Manoneet Dalal, Adv.; Anubhav Jain and Anshul Kumar, CA Respondent by Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.DR Date of hearing 30.03.2017 Date of pronouncement 29.…

ITO 22(3)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Crescent Construction, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 865/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…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…

Crescent Construction Co., Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 22(3), Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…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…

Director of Income Tax vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd

The appeals are dismissed, but with no order as to costs

ITA/1061/2011HC Delhi18 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195(3)Section 260A

…000 the notices under Section 148 of the Act were issued after four years, the notice for the AY 2001-2002 had been issued within four years. The ITAT referred to the decision of the Full Bench („FB‟) of this Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del). It also noted the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 310(Del) where it was held that if the entire material had been placed by the Assessee before the AO at the time when the original assessment was made and the AO had applied his mind to material and accepted the view of the Assessee, then the assessment canno…

Director of Income Tax vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd

The appeals are dismissed, but with no order as to costs

ITA/1058/2011HC Delhi18 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195(3)Section 260A

…000 the notices under Section 148 of the Act were issued after four years, the notice for the AY 2001-2002 had been issued within four years. The ITAT referred to the decision of the Full Bench („FB‟) of this Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del). It also noted the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 310(Del) where it was held that if the entire material had been placed by the Assessee before the AO at the time when the original assessment was made and the AO had applied his mind to material and accepted the view of the Assessee, then the assessment canno…

Embassy Brindavan Developers, Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 42/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri G. S. Sitaraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT –DR-I
Section 143(3)Section 263

…efore, the ld. CIT cannot replace his own view in place of the view of the AO by exercising his powers u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements; 1) CIT Vs Kelvinator India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 (Del.) 2) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) 4. As against this, the ld. DR of the revenue supported the order of the ld. CIT. He also submitted that it is noted by the CIT in para-8 of his order that the property in question was claimed as stock in trade in previous years and a finding has been given by the CIT that as per the p…

Vasudev Dewani, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 765/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Apr 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jhanwar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT-. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 765/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10 cuke M/s. Vasudev Dewani The ITO Vs. B-17, Sansar Chand Road Ward- 3(4) Outside Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPD 4077 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by: Shri Sandeep Jhanwar, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by :Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT-. DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing…

DCIT 9(2), Mumbai vs. Nesco Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5611/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…has held that no such case can be reopened on the basis of change of opinion or without having fresh tangible material before initiating reopening proceeding. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (Full Bench), in the case of CIT vs. Kalvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 (Delhi), at para 12 to 15 has held as under :- "We may also notice that a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Garden Silk Mills (P) Ltd. (supra), while expressing similar views observed- "The reasons recorded by the AO which led to the belief about the escapement of assessment disclose that the present case is nothing but mere change of opi…

DCIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Tata Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2961/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharincome Tax Appeal No.2961/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tata Finance Ltd Large Tax Payer Unit (Now Merged With Tata Motors Centre -1, 29Th Floor Ltd.) World Trade Centre Bombay House 24 Cuffe Parade Homi Mody Street Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan : Aaact1629F (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Income Tax Appeal No.2962/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Tata Motors Ltd. Large Tax Payer Unit Bombay House, 24 Centre -1, 29Th Floor Homi Mody Street World Trade Centre Mumbai – 400 001 Cuffe Parade Pan : Aaact2T27Q Mumbai – 400 005 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Smt S Padmaja & Smt Mahva Sarkar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Dinesh Vyas & Shri Manish Haria सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/12/2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-6, Mumbai Dated 27.01.2014 For The Assessment Years

For Appellant: Smt S Padmaja & Smt Mahva SarkarFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Shri Manish Haria
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80G

…ing Officer, the Assessing Officer is not entitled to commence reassessments on change of opinion in the absence of any new information or change in facts. He places reliance on the following decisions for this proposition. i) CIT V Kelvinator of India Ltd. (256 ITR 1)(Del)(FB) affirmed in CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561)(SC) ii) CIT v Usha International (348 ITR 485)(Del)(FB) iii) Idea Cellular Ltd. v DCIT (301 ITR 407) (Bom.) iv) Cartini India Limited v ACIT (314 ITR 275) (Bom.) v) CIT v Prima Paper & Engg. Ltd. (364 ITR 222) (Bom.) vi) Siemens Information Systems Ltd. v. ACIT (295 ITR 333) (Bom.)…

M/S. Richa Industries Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1476/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singh & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 36Section 80I

…esh Sharma v. B.L.Meena, ITO [2006] 287 ITR 337 (Delhi) 24. IOT Infrastructure and Energy Services Ltd. v Asst. CIT [2010] 329 ITR 547 (Bom.) JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WRT TO PARA 3D ABOVE Judgement Judgement Name No. 14. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi). 25. Vishwanath Engineers v. Asst. CIT [2013] 352 ITR 549 (Guj). 38. SHREE RAM BUILDERS vs. ACIT (OSD) [2015] 377 ITR 631 (Guj) 39. RAAJRATNA METAL INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. ACIT [2015] 371 ITR 222 (Guj) 43. XEROX MODICORP LTD. Vs DCIT [2013] 350 ITR 308 (Del) 44. ROSE SERVICED APARTMENTS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER vs DCIT [2012] 348 ITR 452 (Del) JU…

Shapoorji Pallanji and Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3053/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-3(3), बनाम/ Shapporji Pallonji Centre, Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Vs. 41/44 Minoo Desai Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Colaba Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacs6994C

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…t section 148 is that the Assessing Officer should have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, thus, the law does not permit such a action. The following decisions supports our view:- 1) CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del.) 2) Sheth Brother vs JCIT (2001) 251 ITR 270 (Guj.) 3) CIT vs Corporation Bank Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 791 (SC) 4) Garden Silk Mills P. Ltd. Vs DCIT (1999) 237 ITR 668 (Guj.) 5) CIT vs Hickson & Dadajee Ltd. (1980) 121 ITR 368 (Born.) 6) Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 234 ITR 170 (Del.) 7) Garden Silk Mills vs DCIT (1996) 222 ITR 68 (Guj.…

D.C.I.T, Cir-2, Kolkata vs. M/S Gloster Jute Mills Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1524/KOL/2013[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.1524/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Singhania, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Anand Kumar Sinha, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…he has sought to reopen a completed assessment purely the basis of a change of opinion which was not permissible in law. In this regard the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 (Delhi)(FB) and also the CBDT Circular No.549 dated 31.10.1989 which explained the scope of section 147 and made it very clear that a mere change of opinion cannot form the basis for reopening a completed assessment. Attention was also drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC) wh…

M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - XI, Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee on grounds No

ITA 1951/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1950/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1951/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pinaki Mukherji, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2004-2005 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-I, Kolkata, In Appeal No.434/Cc-Iv/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 05.08.2010 & Appeal No.433/Cc-Xi/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 11.08.2010, Respectively Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. (Ao) Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherji, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1950/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) M/s Eastern Sugar & Vs. ACIT, CC-XI, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/o M/s Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCE 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) AND आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1951/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/s Eastern Sugar & Vs. ACIT, CC-XI, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/o M/s…

M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - XI, Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee on grounds No

ITA 1950/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1950/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1951/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pinaki Mukherji, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2004-2005 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-I, Kolkata, In Appeal No.434/Cc-Iv/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 05.08.2010 & Appeal No.433/Cc-Xi/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 11.08.2010, Respectively Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. (Ao) Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherji, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1950/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) M/s Eastern Sugar & Vs. ACIT, CC-XI, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/o M/s Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCE 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) AND आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1951/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/s Eastern Sugar & Vs. ACIT, CC-XI, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/o M/s…

Epc Industries Ltd, Nashik vs. ACIT OSD 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3210/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Cn Prasad: (A.Y : 2007-08) Epc Industries Ltd. Vs. Acit Osd 10(1) Plot No.H-109, Midc Mumbai Ambad Nashik – 422010 Pan : Aaace2659J (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dinkle H HariyaFor Respondent: Shri PR Ghosh
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 28Section 41(1)

…of his own wrong. The legislature has not conferred power on the assessing officer to review his own order. While holding so, the Hon’ble High Court also considered the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd [256 ITR 1] which was later affirmed by the Supreme Court, reported in [320 ITR 561] as CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. The Hon’ble High Court while holding so held as under “7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. We have also gone through the judgments on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel appearing for both sides. 8. In…

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5432/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Sh. B.S. Bist -DRFor Respondent: Sh. Dinesh Vyas Advocate.)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)Section 293ASection 80G

…uction u/s 80GGB of the Act. In support of his submission that the re-opening is invalid for various reasons, the Ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decisions : 1. CIT v Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC) 2. CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Del) (FB) 3. CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) 4. Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd v CIT [1997] 224 ITR 560 (SC) 5. Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd v ACIT [2006] 281 ITR 394 (Del) 6. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v ADIT [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Del) 7. CIT v Eicher Ltd [2007] 294 ITR 310(Del) 8. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd v DCIT [2…