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 366,470 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.

Hydrise Foods Private Limited, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 86/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…nishers (P) Ltd. – [2015] 374 ITR 595 (SC) and Mumbai ITAT decision in the case of Pratibha Pipes and Structural Ltd. in ITA No.3874/Mum/2015. She also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. – [2002] 256 ITR 1(Delhi). She also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala – [2000] 245 ITR 360(SC) and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited– [2019] 104 taxmann.com 25(SC). 19. I noted that the case law cited by the learned CIT-DR of Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd. (supra)…

ACIT, Circle 3, Lucknow vs. Anshuman Singh, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 342/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…ctional High Court, as mentioned below: • Gujarat Power Corporation Vs. ACIT (2012) 350 ITR 266 (Guj) • Saradbhai M. Lakhani Vs. ITO (1998) 145 CTR 110 (Guj) • CIT Vs. Asian Tubes Ltd. (2015) 54 taxmann.com 227 (Guj) • CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Guj) upheld in 320 ITR 561 (SC) • Sheth Brothers Vs. CIT 251 ITR 270 (Guj) • Sunpipe & Construction C. Vs. ACIT (2014) 44 taxmann.com 409 (Guj) Respectfully following the decisions of binding precedent and applying the ratio to the facts of this case, I am inclined to conclude that the case was re-opened mere on the basis of "change of opinion" w…

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2830/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to 2019-2020 Revenue including one that arose from the judgment of the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi)/[2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi)/[2002] 174 CTR 617 (Delhi)[19-04-2002]. The Full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had held that Section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceeding upon mere ‘change of opinion’. However, it was clarified that if 'reason to believe' is founded on information which…

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2823/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to 2019-2020 Revenue including one that arose from the judgment of the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi)/[2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi)/[2002] 174 CTR 617 (Delhi)[19-04-2002]. The Full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had held that Section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceeding upon mere ‘change of opinion’. However, it was clarified that if 'reason to believe' is founded on information which…

The New India Assurance Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2622/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to 2019-2020 Revenue including one that arose from the judgment of the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi)/[2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi)/[2002] 174 CTR 617 (Delhi)[19-04-2002]. The Full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had held that Section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceeding upon mere ‘change of opinion’. However, it was clarified that if 'reason to believe' is founded on information which…

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2616/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to 2019-2020 Revenue including one that arose from the judgment of the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi)/[2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi)/[2002] 174 CTR 617 (Delhi)[19-04-2002]. The Full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had held that Section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceeding upon mere ‘change of opinion’. However, it was clarified that if 'reason to believe' is founded on information which…

Dileep K Gupta, Delhi vs. DCIT CC-31, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 153/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…nishers (P) Ltd. – [2015] 374 ITR 595 (SC) and Mumbai ITAT decision in the case of Pratibha Pipes and Structural Ltd. in ITA No.3874/Mum/2015. She also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. – [2002] 256 ITR 1(Delhi). She also ITA Nos. 148 to 153/Del/2025 Dileep K. Gupta relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala – [2000] 245 ITR 360(SC) and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs. MahadeshwaraSahakaraSakkareKarkhane Ltd. – [2019] 104 taxmann.com 25(SC). 19. I noted that the case law cited by the learned CIT-DR of…

Dileep K Gupta, Delhi vs. DCIT CC-31, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 152/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…nishers (P) Ltd. – [2015] 374 ITR 595 (SC) and Mumbai ITAT decision in the case of Pratibha Pipes and Structural Ltd. in ITA No.3874/Mum/2015. She also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. – [2002] 256 ITR 1(Delhi). She also ITA Nos. 148 to 153/Del/2025 Dileep K. Gupta relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala – [2000] 245 ITR 360(SC) and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs. MahadeshwaraSahakaraSakkareKarkhane Ltd. – [2019] 104 taxmann.com 25(SC). 19. I noted that the case law cited by the learned CIT-DR of…

Dileep K Gupta, Delhi vs. DCIT CC-31, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 151/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…nishers (P) Ltd. – [2015] 374 ITR 595 (SC) and Mumbai ITAT decision in the case of Pratibha Pipes and Structural Ltd. in ITA No.3874/Mum/2015. She also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. – [2002] 256 ITR 1(Delhi). She also ITA Nos. 148 to 153/Del/2025 Dileep K. Gupta relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala – [2000] 245 ITR 360(SC) and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs. MahadeshwaraSahakaraSakkareKarkhane Ltd. – [2019] 104 taxmann.com 25(SC). 19. I noted that the case law cited by the learned CIT-DR of…

Dileep K Gupta, Delhi vs. DCIT CC-31, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 150/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…nishers (P) Ltd. – [2015] 374 ITR 595 (SC) and Mumbai ITAT decision in the case of Pratibha Pipes and Structural Ltd. in ITA No.3874/Mum/2015. She also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. – [2002] 256 ITR 1(Delhi). She also ITA Nos. 148 to 153/Del/2025 Dileep K. Gupta relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala – [2000] 245 ITR 360(SC) and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs. MahadeshwaraSahakaraSakkareKarkhane Ltd. – [2019] 104 taxmann.com 25(SC). 19. I noted that the case law cited by the learned CIT-DR of…

Dileep K Gupta, Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-31, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 149/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…nishers (P) Ltd. – [2015] 374 ITR 595 (SC) and Mumbai ITAT decision in the case of Pratibha Pipes and Structural Ltd. in ITA No.3874/Mum/2015. She also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. – [2002] 256 ITR 1(Delhi). She also ITA Nos. 148 to 153/Del/2025 Dileep K. Gupta relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala – [2000] 245 ITR 360(SC) and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs. MahadeshwaraSahakaraSakkareKarkhane Ltd. – [2019] 104 taxmann.com 25(SC). 19. I noted that the case law cited by the learned CIT-DR of…

Dileep K Gupta, Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-31, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 148/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…nishers (P) Ltd. – [2015] 374 ITR 595 (SC) and Mumbai ITAT decision in the case of Pratibha Pipes and Structural Ltd. in ITA No.3874/Mum/2015. She also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. – [2002] 256 ITR 1(Delhi). She also ITA Nos. 148 to 153/Del/2025 Dileep K. Gupta relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala – [2000] 245 ITR 360(SC) and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs. MahadeshwaraSahakaraSakkareKarkhane Ltd. – [2019] 104 taxmann.com 25(SC). 19. I noted that the case law cited by the learned CIT-DR of…

Mr. Ravinder Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1579/DEL/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1579/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2006-07 बनाम Mr. Ravinder Kumar Jain, Dcit, H 82, South Extension, Part-1, Vs. Central Circle 07, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aalpj7172P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…in respect of amount of Rs.58,85,666/- amounts to review/revisit of own order dated 28.12.2007 which is impermissible under the law. Under the law, the AO has no power to review/revisit his own order in fresh assessment proceedings. 3 RAVINDER KUMAR JAIN - 256 ITR 1 (Del), CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. - 320 ITR 561 (SC), CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. Ld. Counsel submitted that after completion of original assessment, the then AO had levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) vide order dated 03.03.2014 and in that very penalty order, even the then AO had not levied penalty in relation to amount of R…

Pushkar Vishwas, Bulandshahr vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3), Bulandshahr

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 5661/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singha.Yr. : 2011-12 Pushkar Vishwas, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O Ca Vaibhav Goel, Ward 3(3), Bulandshahr, 75, Navyug Market, Uttar Pradesh 1St Floor, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Aezpv4597E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vaibhav Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

…proceedings u/s. 148 is a clear case of non-application of mind by the AO and also by the authorities providing satisfaction u/s. 151 of the Act.” We find that Full Bench of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. 256 ITR 1, has held that mere change of opinion would not confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to reopen proceedings without anything further. It was held that if the Assessing Officer is allowed to do so, the same would amount to giving a premium to an authority exercising quasi judicial function to take benefit of its wrong. Hence, it is clear th…

Swaty Mehta, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-17, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed as

ITA 2551/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2549/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Sonia Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2551/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Swaty Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153D

…nishers (P) Ltd. – [2015] 374 ITR 595 (SC) and Mumbai ITAT decision in the case of Pratibha Pipes and Structural Ltd. in ITA No.3874/Mum/2015. She also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. – [2002] 256 ITR 1(Delhi). She also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala – [2000] 245 ITR 360(SC) and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs. MahadeshwaraSahakaraSakkareKarkhane Ltd. – [2019] 104 taxmann.com 25(SC). 19. I noted that the case law cited by the learned CIT-DR of Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd. (supra) relates…

Sonia Mehta, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-17, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed as

ITA 2549/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2549/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Sonia Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2551/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Swaty Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153D

…nishers (P) Ltd. – [2015] 374 ITR 595 (SC) and Mumbai ITAT decision in the case of Pratibha Pipes and Structural Ltd. in ITA No.3874/Mum/2015. She also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. – [2002] 256 ITR 1(Delhi). She also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala – [2000] 245 ITR 360(SC) and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs. MahadeshwaraSahakaraSakkareKarkhane Ltd. – [2019] 104 taxmann.com 25(SC). 19. I noted that the case law cited by the learned CIT-DR of Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd. (supra) relates…

Agrawala Finserve Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3503/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain & Atul DhamaFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं.3503/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2012-13) Agrawala Finserve P Ltd., 413, Vikas Deep Building, District Centre, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092 PAN: AAACA-6624-K बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent C R Building, IP Estate, Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant by : S/Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain & Atul Dhama, Chartered Accountants "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent by : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date of…

Kailash Gahlot, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

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

ITA 3431/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.3431/Del./2023, A.Y. 2015-16 Kailash Gahlot Deputy Commissioner Of C-6/6172, Vasant Kunj, Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. Central Circle-4, Pan: Aajpg2849N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ca Sh. Anmol Jha, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 153DSection 69C

…dditions proposed in the draft order or other jurisdictional issues. Hence, the application of mind by approving authority must be ascertained in the limited context only. 16. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court (Full Bench), in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. 123 Taxmann 433 (FB), on the basis of the statutory presumption under section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, had drawn a presumption in the Income Tax matter that all official actions were performed regularly unless controverted by the corroboratory evidence. Thus; in the present case, the onus is on the assessee to rebut that the Addl. CIT while a…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Somani Services Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 2220/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 250

…s Kelvinator (supra) to hold that the subsequent actions of AOs’ were based on a change of opinion. At this juncture, we need to see what actually was the finding in the Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s in the Kelvinator case [reported in 256 ITR 1 (FB-Delhi)], which eventually travelled up to the Hon’ble Apex Court. In this regard, a critical passage from the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s order deserves to be extracted: “21. Another aspect of the matter also cannot be lost sight of. A statute conferring an arbitrary power may be held to be ultra vires article 14 of the Constitution of India. I…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Somani Services Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 2219/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 250

…s Kelvinator (supra) to hold that the subsequent actions of AOs’ were based on a change of opinion. At this juncture, we need to see what actually was the finding in the Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s in the Kelvinator case [reported in 256 ITR 1 (FB-Delhi)], which eventually travelled up to the Hon’ble Apex Court. In this regard, a critical passage from the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s order deserves to be extracted: “21. Another aspect of the matter also cannot be lost sight of. A statute conferring an arbitrary power may be held to be ultra vires article 14 of the Constitution of India. I…