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.

ITO 3(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Everlon Synthetics P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 6965/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6965/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Income Tax Officer 3(1)(4), M/S Everlon Synthetics बनाम/ R. No. 666, Pvt. Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhawan,M.K. Road, 67, Regent Chambers, Mumbai – 400 020. 208 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaace0860H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…nd Investments Ltd., (2009) 308 ITR 190 (Bom), 6. Siemens Information Systems Ltd., (2008)295 ITR 333 (Bom) and 7. Asian Paints Ltd., (2009)308 ITR 195 (Bom) ITA 6965/Mum/2013 12 8. Delhi High Court full Bench in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd, (2002) 256 ITR 1 (del) 9. Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd., (1978)114 ITR 404 (AP) 10. Rallis India Ltd, (2010) 323 ITR 54 (Bom) Based upon the above discussions and case laws, the learned CIT(A) observed that it is clear that if the issue has already been considered by the A.O. during the original assessment proceedings, the assessment cannot be reopened u/s 147 of the Ac…

The Tata Power Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No

ITA 3078/MUM/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3078/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03) The Tata Power Co. Ltd, The Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Corporate Center, Block ‘B, Income Tax- Circle V. 5 Th Floor, 2(3),Aayakar Bhavan, 34, Sant Tukaram Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact0054A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…er France , 264 ITR 566(SC) ii) IPCA Laboratories Limited v. DCIT, 251 ITR 416(Bom.) iii) Parshuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO ,106 ITR 1(SC) iv) Addl. CIT v. Shankerdas B. Pahljani in ITA no. 5085/Mum/ 2001(Mum Trib.) v) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Limited 256 ITR 1(Del.)(FB) vi) Wyeth India Private Limited v. IAC 137 ITR 20(Bom.) vii) Garden Silk Mills Private Limited v. DCIT 237 ITR 668(Guj.) viii) Jindal Photo Mills Limited v. DCIT 234 ITR 170(Del) ix) India Steamship Co. Limited v. JCIT 194 CTR 386(Cal.) x) Transworld International Inc. 192 CTR 97(Del) It was also submitted that reassessment has been made…

A.C.I.T Cir - 35, Kolkata vs. M/S Mor Overseas, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 951/KOL/2013[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 1996-1997

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 1996-97

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri S.P.Chowdhury, Advocate
Section 132ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151

…inion regarding escapement of income. It was also argued that initiation of reassessment proceedings were based on a mere change of opinion and reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1(Del.). 7. The CIT(A) on consideration of the above submissions held that initiation of reassessment proceedings were bad in law and in holding so followed the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Ashwini Kumar More (supra). The following were the relevant observations of the CIT(A): “4.2. I have perused the assessment order and considered t…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Lahoti Overseas Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee company in ITA

ITA 3812/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3812/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Lahoti Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Tax , 5(2),Room No. 571, 307, Arun Chambers, V. 5 Th Floor, Tardeo Road, Tardeo, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400034. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl2578 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare (Sr.DR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…ciation on windmill was correct and the assessee company challenged the reopening as bad in law and illegal. The assessee company further relied on the following decisions:- i) Asian Paints Ltd v. DCIT 308 ITR 195 (Bom) ii) Kelvinator of India Limited (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del) (FB) iii) Cartini India Limited v. ACIT 314 ITR 275 Bom) iv) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Limited (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) v) Rallies India Limited v. ACIT 232 CTR 143 (Bom) vi) Mitsui Marubheni Corpn v. DCIT 298 ITR (AT) 283 vii) IPCA Laqboratories Limited v. Jagdanand Meena DCIT, 251 ITR 416 (Bom). The assessee company contended that there wa…

M/S. Vijay Power Generators Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4086/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahui.T.A. No. 4086/Del/2013 A.Y. : 2004-05 M/S Vijay Power Generators Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 17(1), 5, Park End, (Opp.) Preet Vihar, New Delhi Metro Pillar No. 101, Vikas Marg, New Delhi – 11- 0902 (Pan: Aaacv0191N) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanat Kapoor, Adv., Ms. AnanyaFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154

…in CWP(C), CM No. 2744/2014 and 2745/2014 (Delhi High Court). 5 A.Y. 2004-05 c) ITAT, SMC-2, Delhi Bench decision dated 17.11.2015 passed in the case of Sh. Rakesh Bandhu vs. ITO in ITA No. 2586/Del/2014 (AY 2009-10). d) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] e) CIT vs. Kelvinator India 320 ITR 561 (SC) f) CIT vs. Orient Craft 354 ITR 536 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order on the basis of the documentary evidence filed by the assessee as well as prevailing law. He further stated that Notice…

M/S Excellent Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3052/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…onable grounds. (ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das – 103 ITR 437 at 448 (SC) and Navinchandra Mohanlal Parik vs. vs. WTO – 124 ITR 68). The Hon’ble Supreme Court endorsing the Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. – 256 ITR 1 held in its order reported in 320 ITR 561, “…..that Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is “tangible material” to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have link with the formation of belief.” Therefore, if the fresh tangible material which the AO has in his possession is relevant…

A.C.I.T Cir - 35, Kolkata vs. M/S More International, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 997/KOL/2013[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 1996-1997

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 1996-97

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri S.P.Choudhury & Shri Soumitra Choudhury,Advocate
Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…inion regarding escapement of income. It was also argued that initiation of reassessment proceedings were based on a mere change of opinion and reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1(Del.). 7. The CIT(A) on consideration of the above submissions held that initiation of reassessment proceedings were bad in law and in holding so followed the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Ashwini Kumar More (supra). The following were the relevant observations of the CIT(A): “5.3 I have perused the assessment order and considered th…

M/S More International, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T Cir - 35, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 556/KOL/2013[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 1996-1997

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 1996-97

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri S.P.Choudhury & Shri Soumitra Choudhury,Advocate
Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…inion regarding escapement of income. It was also argued that initiation of reassessment proceedings were based on a mere change of opinion and reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1(Del.). 7. The CIT(A) on consideration of the above submissions held that initiation of reassessment proceedings were bad in law and in holding so followed the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Ashwini Kumar More (supra). The following were the relevant observations of the CIT(A): “5.3 I have perused the assessment order and considered th…

Fibres & Fabrics International P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-11(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1352/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Fibres & Fabrics International Pvt. Ltd. No.21, E-1, 2Nd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore-560058. … Appellant Pan: Aaacf 6841 M Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(3), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 253Section 32(1)(ii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAYPAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s.Fibres & Fabrics International Pvt. Ltd. No.21, E-1, 2nd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore-560058. … Appellant PAN: AAACF 6841 M Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 11(3), Bangalore. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Respondent by : Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 10/12/2015 Date of pronouncement : 10/02/2016 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This is an appeal filed by the assessee-company, directed against…

R.P. Suvarna, Mumbai vs. CIT (33), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5536/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2006-07 Mr. R. P. Suvarna, Ito-18(3)(3), No.15, Rajanigandha Apts. Mumbai बनाम/ T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Vs. Mumbai-400016 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Anbps3240G

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50C

…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…

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Steel International (India) Ltd, ( Formelry Known As Corus International India P. Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1790/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi
Section 115WSection 115w

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No 1790/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax M/s. Tata Steel International (India) Circle 3(1), Ltd., Room No.607, Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly known as Corus बनाम/ Mumbai-400 020. International India Pvt. Ltd.), 503-504, Raheja Chambers, Vs. 213, Backbay Reclamation, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AACCC 5436D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : C.O. No 104/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:…

DCIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Shreya Life Scinida P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the ground of reopening is decided in favour of assessee, whereas ground of treating the non compete fee as revenue expenditure is decided in favour of Revenue

ITA 7071/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7071/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2002-03) Acit, Cc-44, Mumbai. Vs. Shreya Life Science Pvt. Ltd. Shreya House, 301-A, Pareira Hill Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 9890 C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind (Dr) ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satish R Mody सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14/01/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), For The Assessment Year 2002-03, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147-13A Of The I.T. Act. 2. Following Grounds Taken By The Revenue :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law In Holding That The Notice Issued U/S.147 Is Bad In Law & Reassessment Made Is Invalid Without Appreciating The Fact That The Ao Had Not Discussed This Issue At All In His Original Assessment Order. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.2.50 Cr. Being 1/4Th Of Rs.10 Cr. Paid To M/S Rallies India Ltd As Non-Compete Fees Treated By The Ao As Capital Expenditure Without Appreciating The Facts Brought On Record By The Ao. The Appellant Prays That The Order Of Cit(A) On The Above Grounds Be Set Aside & That Of Assessing Officer Be Restored.”

For Appellant: Shri Satish R ModyFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…h are listed as under: - (i) Sesa Goa Ltd. vs. JCIT (2007) 294 ITR 101 (ii) German Remedies Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 26 (Bom) (iii) ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (iv) CIT vs. Holck Larsen 85 ITR 467 (Bom) (v) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del.) (vi) N.C. Gupta vs. ACIT (2004) 90 ITD 768 (Del.) (vii) Sanghvi Swiss Refills P. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2006) 300 ITR 276 (Bom.) 6. By the impugned order, the CIT(A) held the reopening as invalid by observing that there was mere change of opinion. Precise observation of ld. CIT(A) was as under:- The information on record is carefully examined. The c…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5611/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

…come was due to fault of the assessee, in not fully and truly disclosing the material facts at the time of original assessment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court endorsing the Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. – 256 ITR 1 held in its order reported in 320 ITR 561, “…..that Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is “tangible material” to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have link with the formation of belief.” Therefore, if the fresh tangible material which the AO has in his possession is relevant…

M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5581/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

…come was due to fault of the assessee, in not fully and truly disclosing the material facts at the time of original assessment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court endorsing the Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. – 256 ITR 1 held in its order reported in 320 ITR 561, “…..that Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is “tangible material” to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have link with the formation of belief.” Therefore, if the fresh tangible material which the AO has in his possession is relevant…

J.V Gokal Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1454/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No 1454/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05)

For Appellant: Shri. Naveen Gupta
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No 1454/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) J.V. Gokal Securities Pvt. Ltd. ITO 1(2)(1) 1st Floor, Sadhana House, बनाम/ 570 P.B. Marg, Behind Mahindra Vs. Towers, Worli, Mumbai-400 018. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACJ 8885B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : : Shri. Rajesh Shah अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri. Naveen Gupta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 03/09/2015 Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 06/01/2016 Date of Pronoun…

DDIT (E)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Matunga Gymkhana, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 7375/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआमकय अऩीर सं. / Ita No.7375/Mum./2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2004–05) Asstt. Director Of Income Tax–I(1) …….………. अऩीरधथी / Room No.504, Piramal Chambers Appellant 5Th Floor, Parel, Mumbai V/S Matunga Gymkhana ..…….………. प्रत्मथी / Lakhamsey Napoo Road Matunga, Mumbai 400 018 Respondent Pan – Aaatm1035F यधजस्व की ओय से / Revenue By : Maurya Pratap ननधधारयती की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri Paresh Shaparia सुनवधई की तधयीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing – 07.10.2015 Date Of Order – 30.10.2015

For Appellant: Shri Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Maurya Pratap
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 147

…eopening the assessment u/s 147 and reassessing the income at ` 58,05,300. \in the facts and circumstances of the case, I have no hesitation that reopening of assessment u/s 148 is bad in law. Reliance is placed on the decision of CIT v/s Kelvinator of India (256 ITR 1) (Del.) and Bombay High Court decision in the case of German Remedies Ltd. v/s DCIT, 287 ITR 494) (Bom.). Hence, the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 24.12.2010 is annulled. This ground of appeal is allowed. 4. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute to the fac…

Lic Housing Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5435/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri R.C.Sharma, Am

For Appellant: Shri H.P.MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 32Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…nancial Statements, of the Special Reserve held, of the withdrawal of Rs.76 cr. in the respective year and of the depreciation claim and hence action taken by AO is nothing more than mere change of opinion. Reliance was placed on CIT vs Kelvinator India Ltd. (256 ITR 1) which has since been approved by Supreme Court Larger Bench (20-10 TIOL 06), IPCA Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Gajanand Meena (251 ITR 416). 4. With regard to deprecation ld. AR has placed reliance on the decision of Kolkata High Court in the case of Pressman Advertising & Marketing Ltd. reported in 142 Taxman 17 (Kol),Allahabad Bank v CIT (1992) 108 CTR…

M/S. Veer Overseas Ltd., Karnal vs. ACIT, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3599/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. G.C.Gupta, V.P. & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am Ita No. 3599/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Abishek Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.P.Chandrekar, SR. DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250(6)Section 43(1)

…itiated within 4 years, it is important to examine whether there is “change of opinion” by AO as in the assessment order this issue is not discussed. For this Hon. Delhi high court in CIT V Usha International 348 ITR 485 has held that “7. In Kelvinator (2002) 256 ITR 1 (FB), a Full Bench judgment of this court, this question has been answered in the affirmative on the ground that an assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act must be presumed to be one passed after full scrutiny and formation of opinion on the points raised in the return and in the course of the assessment proceedings. It has been obs…

Devendra Kumar, Bulandshahr vs. ITO, Bulandshahr

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 5179/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sudhiranjan Senapati, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ed 30.03.2006, therefore, the 6 reopening on the basis of the same issue which was examined in the course of original assessment was a change of opinion. On a similar issue the Hon’ble Delhi High Court Full Bench in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 held as under: “The scope and effect of section 147 as substituted with effect from April 1, 1989, by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, and subsequently amended by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989, with effect from April 1, 1989, as also of sections 148 to 152 have been elaborated in Circular No. 549, dated October 31, 1989. A per…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Smcc Construction India Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4451/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. H.S.Sidhu, Jm & Sh. O.P.Kant, Am Ita No.4451/Del./2012 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Acit Vs Smcc Construction India Ltd. Circle-9(1), Room No. 163, 23, Local Shopping Centre, C.R. Building Madangir, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7822P Appellant By : Sh. Sujit Kumar, Sr. Dr. Respondent By : Sh. Vikrant Suri, C.A. Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2015 Order Per O.P.Kant, A.M. This Appeal Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th May, 2012 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - Xii, New Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue In Its Solitary Ground Has Raised That The Quashing Of Assessment Order By The Ld Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) By Recording A Perverse Finding That The Earlier Assessing Officer Has Applied Mind To The Royalty Expenses Being Revenue In Nature, Was Not Justified. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Is A Joint Venture Between Mitsui Construction Co. Ltd, Japan & M/S Kairali Construction, India & Was Engaged In Providing Engineering 2

For Appellant: Sh. Sujit Kumar, SR. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Vikrant Suri, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 40

…years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The assessment has been sought to be reopened on the ground that the assessee has not disclosed the material facts in respect of royalty truly and fully in assessment. 9. In CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was considering a case of reopening u/s 147 within 4 years from the end of the assessment year. It was held that section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon a mere change of opinion. On appeal by the department to th…