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 367,154 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 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 Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 46/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…rt in the case of- CIT v. Keivinator (India) Ltd. dated January 18, 2010 reported In 11 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. [2010], 320 ITR 561, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has affirmed the two decisions of the Delhi High Courts - CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) and held that the Assessing Officer can reopen an assessment only on the basis of some tangible material to form reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. A mere change of opinion could not be a valid ground for issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 19. The Supreme Court in the…

Asst CIT CC 8(4), Mumbai vs. Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 242/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Asst CIT CC 8(4), Mumbai vs. Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 241/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

ACIT Cir 12(3), Mumbai vs. Kabra & Associates, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6965/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6965/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Acit Circle – 12(3), M/S Kabra & Associates, बनाम/ R. No. 137, Ist Floor, 2 Nd Floor, Jash Chambers, V. Aayakar Bhavan, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai 400 023. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaffk2000F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 40(1)(ia)

…s escaped assessment and it is only from the facts on record that the AO came to the conclusion that the income has escaped assessment which is merely a change of opinion. The assessee relied upon the following decisions:- 1. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 256 ITR 1 (Affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 320 ITR 561 (SC)). 2. Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT,(2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom) 3. NDT Systems v. ITO, 255 CTR 113 (Bom) ITA 6965/Mum/2014 7 The ld. CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee on the ground that the A.O. clearly recorded that the assessee has deducted TDS on amount of Rs. 1,29,63,647/- paid for…

Yes Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 1991/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa Gandhi and Shri Nimesh Jain-ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vidisha Kalra-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 35DSection 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ “ “ “ जी जी जी” खंडपीठ जी Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“G”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, राम लाल नेगी एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, "याियक राम लाल नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/1991/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Yes Bank Limited DCIT, -8(3)(2) 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, discovery Room No.615, 6th Floor, A…

Mr. DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bharti Airtel Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1338/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R. S. Syal & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1338/Del/2013 (Assessment Year 2002-03)

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)

…sment order u/s 143(3) dated 31/3/2005 and that a mere change of opinion by the Learned A.O is not a valid ground for reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act. WE draw your reference to the Full Bnech decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court reported in 256 ITR 1 as CIT(A) Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. The AR of the assessee company also relied upon the judgment in the case of Jindal Photo Films Ltd. Vs. DCIT 234 ITR 170 and Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Gujrat) 222 ITR 6…….” 4. After considering the reply of the assessee company, Assessing Officer held that the order mentioned by the assessee that of Tri…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 5177/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

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

…tion of mind and thus to confer jurisdiction upon him to reopen the proceedings. It is a well settled law that power u/s 147 of the Act cannot be used to review an earlier order. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 256 ITR 1 has held as under: “When a regular assessment is passed in terms of sub-section (3) of sec. 143, a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind. Such a presumption can be Page 6of 9 M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. raised in terms of clause (e) of sec. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that such…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh Arvind Khanna, New Delhi

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1703/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Sahil Agarwal, Adv

Section 148Section 16A(5)Section 55A

…cation of mind and thus to confer jurisdiction upon him to reopen the proceedings. It is a well settled law that power u/s 147 of the Act cannot be used to review an earlier order. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 256 ITR 1 has held as under: “When a regular assessment is passed in terms of sub-section (3) of sec. 143, a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind. Such a presumption can be raised in terms of clause (e) of sec. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that such an Act has been regularly performed. If it be held tha…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh Arvind Khanna, New Delhi

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1702/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Sahil Agarwal, Adv

Section 148Section 16A(5)Section 55A

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2673/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Saroha, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv

Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…nt year. The ld.AR placed is reliance upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court including various other high courts which are as under: a. GKN driveshaft India Ltd vs. ITO (2002) 259 ITR 19 (SC) b. CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd 123 Taxmann 433 (Delhi) (FB) (2002) c. Mithles Kumar Tripathi vs. CIT (2006) (All.) 280 ITR 16 11 I.T.A.NO.2673/Del/2011 d. ICICI bank Ltd vs. DCIT 136 taxman 699 (Bom.) (2004) 7.1 The ld. AR submitted that nothing has been mentioned in the notice under section 148 and/or 142 (1) of the Act, which could indicate that any income chargeable to tax has escape…

Abhayam Trading Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 411/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.410 & 411/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Abhayam Trading Limited (Formerly Known As Apple Credit The Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation Limited), V. Income Tax, No.2, Gokul Arcade, 1St Floor, Corporate Circle 1(1), Sardar Patel Road, Adyar, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aacca 2996 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B. Koteswara Rao, CIT

Section 115JSection 147

…d amount to change of opinion. The Ld. representative has also placed his reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 and the judgment of Full Bench of Delhi High Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1. 5. Placing reliance on the judgment of Gujarat High Court in General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2013) 354 ITR 244, the Ld. representative for the assessee submitted that when the Assessing Officer fails to dispose of the objection raised by the assessee for reopening of assessment, the Assessing Officer cannot pass an assessment order. Accor…

Abhayam Trading Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 410/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B. Koteswara Rao, CIT

Section 115JSection 147

Lupin Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 825/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2003-04) M/S. Lupin Limited Vs. Acit Ltu, 159, C.S.T Road, Kalina, Mumbai. Santa Cruz (East), Mumbai 400 098. Pan : Aaacl1069K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 115JSection 127Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 35Section 80Section 80I

…e material was available, therefore, in the absence of any new tangible material reopening is bad in law. In this respect, the Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments : i) Kelvinator India Ltd., (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii) Kalvinator of India Ltd., (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del HC) iii) Motilal R. Todi, ITA No. 2910/Mum/2013 (Mum Trib) dated 22nd September, 2015 iv) GKN Sinter Metals Ltd., (2015) 371 ITR 225 (Bom HC) v) Oriental Insurance Company, (2015) 94 CCH 12 (Del HC) vi) Amitabh Bachchan, (2012) 349 ITR 76 (Bom HC) vii) Cartini India Ltd., (2009) 314 ITR 275 (Bom HC) viii) Asian Paints Ltd., (2009) 308 ITR 195…

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

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5720/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6, Vasant Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacm0829Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Neeraj Jain, Rohit Jain, Adv. Romit Katyal & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Cas Department By:Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. NeerajFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

…case decided in favour by CIT (A) for AY 2003-04 b) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 37 ITR 1 (SC) c) Metal Box (1969) 73 ITR 53 (SC) d) United Commercial Bank v. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC) e) Bharat Earth Movers 245 ITR 428 (SC). f) Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1 confirmed by SC in 320 ITR 561 g) CIT v. Vinitec Corpn. (P) Ltd. : 278 ITR 337 (Del.) h) National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. JCIT : 98 ITD 278 (Hyd. ITAT) 26.3.9 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs 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…

Luminant Investments Ltd ( Formelry Known As Luminant Investments P. Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1084/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am Luminant Investments Ltd., Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Radha Bhavan, 1St Floor, Tax, Central Circle-40, 121, Nagindas Master Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Mumbai 400 023 Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaacl 0834 A .. Appellant Respondent

Section 11(4)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…e reason is merely a change of opinion as the AO deemed to have applied his mind on facts which are on record and reopening on change of opinion is not permissible even within 4 years. This view of ours is supported by CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) of Full Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court while considering a case of reopening u/s 147 of the Act within 4 years from the end of the assessment year. The Court held that when a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of section 143 (3) of the Act, a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of min…

M/S Kisan Gramin Bhandaran vs. ITO

Appeal is allowed

ITA 604/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O. P, Kant Assessment Year: 2007-08 Kisan Gramin Bhandaran, Vs. Ito, Asalatpur Jarai, Chandausi, Chandausi (Up) (Up) (Pan: Aaifk1137C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Department By: Smt. Rishpal Bedi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18 .04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 27:06.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On The Ground That The Learned Cit(Appeals) Was Justified In Upholding Rental Income Received On Letting Out Warehouses Under The Head “Income From House Property” Against The Business Income Shown By The Assessee. 2. Heard & Considered The Arguments Advanced By The Parties In View Of Orders Of The Authorities Below, Material Available On Record & The Decisions Relied Upon. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee, A Partnership Firm Had Disclosed Rental Income Of Rs.8,11,046 As Business Income In Its Profit & Loss Account & Net Income Of Rs.2,325 Was Shown As Business Income After

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Rishpal Bedi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…fully and truly disclosing all material facts. Thus, the reopening was not valid as it was based on change of opinion only. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) – 256 ITR 1 upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2010) – 320 ITR 561 (SC) holding that reopening is not permissible on the basis of change of opinion and if notice under sec. 148 is issued without the jurisdictional foundation available under sec. 147 of the Act, the notice and subsequent proceedings will be invalid. 5. On merit, the Learned AR su…

Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4504/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2005-06 Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Acit, Delux Apartment, Circle-16(2), बनाम/ Altamount Road, Matru Mandir Bldg. Vs. Mumbai-400026 Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Afupg3313H ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 53ESection 54ESection 56

…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) 21 Jayant Manilal Gandhy 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…

M/S. Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Hisar vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2560/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 168, Delhi Rod, Sector 27-28, Hisar. Hisar. (Pan: Aaics9088H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri Ashish Kumar, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Pankaj Vidharthi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Vidharthi, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

…nd he formed an affirmative opinion accepting the claim of the respondent. 19. In DLF Power Ltd. (supra), a similar reasoning and ratio was given and reference was made to the decision of a Full Bench of Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India (2012) 256 ITR 1 (Del.). In the said case, order of remand to the Commissioner of Income Tax for fresh decision was passed after noticing that the Tribunal had considered the question of bifurcation of interest income with reference to the deduction under Section 80IA. It was I.T.A. 2560/D/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 recorded that this bifurcation and the natur…

Mr. Keshab Chandra Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3767/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2001-02 Sh. Keshab Chandra Jain Vs. Acit, Circle Noida C/O S.Ramanand Aiyar & Co. C.As Noida 708, Surya Kiran Bldg. 19, Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi 110 001 Pan: Abupj 6333 Q

For Appellant: Ms. Lalitha Krishnamurthy, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. T.James Singson, Sr.D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(i)Section 143(2)(i)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(i)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AY: 2001-02 Sh. Keshab Chandra Jain vs. ACIT, Circle Noida C/o S.Ramanand Aiyar & Co. C.As Noida 708, Surya Kiran Bldg. 19, Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi 110 001 PAN: ABUPJ 6333 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Lalitha Krishnamurthy, C.A. Respondent by : Sh. T.James Singson, Sr.D.R. ORDER PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order dated 11.5.2011 of Ld.CIT(A), Ghaziabad pertaining…

DCIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Universal Ferro & Allied Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1827/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri V. MohanFor Respondent: Shri A. Kumbhar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154

…essee, then, subsequent action of reopening of assessment on similar issue is nothing but merely ‘change of opinion’ of Assessing Officer and said conclusion by Ld. CIT(A) is fortified by the decision of the Apex court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd., 256 ITR 1. The Ld. CIT(A) after appreciating the judgment in the case 14 M/s Universal Ferro & Allied Chemicals Ltd. of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (supra) and Compaq Electric Ltd. (supra) has rightly come to the conclusion that the addition so made by the Assessing Officer were clearly wrong and unjustified in view of the jurisdictional high court’s decision…