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 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 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.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…India (P) Ltd. vs CIT: 314 ITR 62 (SC)  Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.: 37 ITR 1 (SC)  Metal Box (P) Limited (1969): 73 ITR 53 (SC)  United Commercial Bank vs. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC)  Bharat Earth Movers: 245 ITR 428 (SC)  Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1 confirmed by SC in 320 ITR 561  CIT vsVinitecCorpn. (P) Ltd.: 278 ITR 337 (Delhi) He further submitted that the appeals filed by the department, inter-alia, on this issue before the Delhi High Court for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 have not been admitted. Accordingly, he pleaded to allow these grounds. 20. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Rev…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

Rng Construction Co, Mandideep vs. Addl., Jt., Dy., Asstt.ITO, Bhopal

ITA 230/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 230/Ind/2024 (AY: 2015-16) RNG Construction Co. Vs. Addl. Jt. Dy. Asstt. ITO Bhopal 14, Sector-A, Indira Nagar, Mandideep (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AAQFR9084B Assessee by Revenue by Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement Shri Yashwant Sharma, CA & AR Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR 28.08.2025 12.09.2025 आदेश / ORDER Per B.M. Biyani, AM: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 15.02.2024 passed by lea…

Jaivir, Sonepat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Sonepat

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

ITA 3275/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singha.Yr. : 2012-13 Jaivir, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Sonipat, H.No. 1399, Sector-23, Haryana Sonipat, Haryana (Pan: Amgmpj7567H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 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…

Dheeraj Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6159/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 274

…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) relate…

Agri Gold Foods and Farm Products Limited, Vijayawada vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

ITA 2000/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)

…Court of Bombay in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2008) 308 ITR 195 (Bom). The Hon’ble High Court, by drawing support from the landmark judgment of the “Full bench” of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del) [which thereafter had been 24 Agri Gold Foods and Farm Products Limited approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC)] had observed that the department cannot take recourse to the provisions of Section 147 of the Act for the failure of the A.O. to apply his mind in the original assessment proceedin…

India Japan Lighting Private Limited, Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 4, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1427/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1427/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 V. M/S. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit-4, No.1, Tiruvallur High Road, Chennai. Puduchatram B.O., Thirumazhisai, Tiruvallur-600 124. [Pan: Aaaci 2673 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

…that an officer entrusted with a judicial or quasi- judicial duty must be presumed to have discharged his duties in a proper and bonafide manner. This view is confirmed by the full bench decision of the Delhi high court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd (256 ITR 1) (Delhi FB), was upheld by the Supreme court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kelvinator Of India Ltd ( 320 ITR 561)(SC). 15. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Marico Ltd., vs. ACIT in writ petition No.1917 of 2019 dated 21.08.2019, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has clearly pointed out once a query has been raised by the AO duri…

Tata Motors Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 3511/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon'Ble

Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 32A

…he facts available on record", this belief was not based on any new material / fact, but was based on the change of opinion. The ld. AR further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 2002] 256 ITR 1 (SC), wherein it has been held that "reopening of assessment under Section 147 is possible only on tangible material/fact and not on change of opinion of the Assessing Officer and therefore, the reopening of assessment based on change of opinion is bad in law…

Geeta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-2, Rohtak

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

ITA 3716/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singha.Yr. : 2016-17 Geeta Ito, Ward-2, Rohtak B-50, Lgf, South Extension-Ii, Vs. New Delhi – 49 (Pan: Aaypg9406A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…lure on the part of assessee. It amounts to change of opinion which does not confer jurisdiction u/s147/148 for reopening completed assessment. 6.2 I 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…

Sumit Suneja, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 34(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3688/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singha.Yr. : 2011-12 Sumit Suneja, Vs. Acit, Circle 34(1), H-34, Pocket-17, Sector-3, Rithala, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi – 85 (Pan: Aaypg9406A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suregsh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2844/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

…d that the assessment order did not discuss anything about DDT and hence it should be assumed that this amounts to deemed acceptance of DDT liability by the AO. He submitted that the same amounts to application of mind as held in the case of Kelvinator (2002)(256 ITR 1) by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Accordingly he submitted that it cannot be said that the DDT liability is not part of assessment order passed u/s 143(3), if it is not specifically discussed in the assessment order, especially when there is no other section in the Act dealing with the assessment of DDT liability like the case of Fringe Benefit Tax ass…

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2843/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

DCIT, CC-1(4), Kolkata vs. Kkalpana Industries India Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 452/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.452/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 2B, Pretoria Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 13.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070338584(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Ms. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Revenue Has Been Filed Belatedly By 28 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 28 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate and Ms. Puja Somani, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 45

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.452/KOL/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) DCIT, CC-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 2B, Pretoria Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 PAN No. :AABCK 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate and Ms. Puja Somani, CA रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Prono…

Ct. Ramanathan (HUF), Pudukkottai vs. PCIT 1, Madurai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 761/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.761/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 C.T.Ramanathan(Huf), Income Tax Officer, No.7/45, Ct.Rm.S.House, M.St.S. Street Ward-1, Kulipirai, Pudukottai Dist, Pudukottai. Tamil Nadu-622 402. [Pan: Aaahc0701L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.V.Subbarayan, Dcit(Retd.) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.M.K.Biju, Cir Dr By Virtual. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr.V.Subbarayan, DCIT(Retd.)For Respondent: Mr.M.K.Biju, CIR DR by virtual

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3

…ple that an officer entrusted with a judicial or quasi- judicial duty must be presumed to have discharged his duties in a proper and bonafide manner. This view is confirmed by the full bench decision of the Delhi high court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd (256 ITR 1) (Delhi FB), was upheld by the Supreme court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kelvinator Of India Ltd ( 320 ITR 561)(SC). 15. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Marico Ltd., vs. ACIT in writ petition No.1917 of 2019 dated 21.08.2019, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has clearly pointed out once a query has been raised by the AO during…

ITO, Ward-2(1), Patna vs. M/S Sun Comtech Pvt Ltd, Patna

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

ITA 108/PAT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…nts in the case of Income-tax Officer vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC)[30-03-1976] which has been extracted in the appeal order and also in the cases of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi)/[2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi)/[2002] I.T.A. No.: 108/PAT/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Sun Comtech Pvt. Ltd. 174 CTR 617 (Delhi)[19-04-2002] and Kumar Stores vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2012] 21 taxmann.com 91 (Patna)/[2012] 340 ITR 90 (Patna)/[2012] 250 CTR 62 (Patna)[20- 05-2011]. However, the Ld. CIT(A) went through the assessment order and the submissions m…

Himmatlal Kanhaiyalal Jain, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-41, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 102/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhujhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri. Biswanath Das-CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

…view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. In the instant case, two views were inherently possible and the assessee, therefore, could not be subjected to the exercise of the jurisdiction under section 263." c. CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd 12 Taxmann.com 445 (Del-HC) "At the inception itself, the question which arose was whether in the facts of the case, section 263 could have been invoked. The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the revenue" used in section 263 has to be read in the conjunction with an "erroneous" order passed by the Assessing Officer. Thus, it is not, as if in every case…

Shyam Mahima Colonisers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 930/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarm/S. Shyam Mahima Colonisers Pvt. Ltd., 502, Ruby Tower, Somdutta Apartment, Hawa Sarak, Jaipur - 302006. Pan No. Aaqcs 3093Q ...... Appellant

For Appellant: Mr. S.B. Natani, C.A., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Shyam Mahima Colonisers Pvt. Ltd., 502, Ruby Tower, Somdutta Apartment, Hawa Sarak, Jaipur - 302006. PAN No. AAQCS 3093Q ...... Appellant Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Jaipur. …...Respondent Appellant by : Mr. S.B. Natani, C.A., Ld. AR Respondent by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR Date of hearing : 08/05/2025 Date of pronouncement : 08/05/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 06.05.2024 pa…

Akshay Kumar Rungta, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), International Taxation

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

ITA 66/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 151Section 153Section 153CSection 250

…l Bench in Usha International further cleared a misconception which appears to have been harboured with respect to certain observations which appeared in a previous decision of a Full Bench of this Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd [2002] 123 Taxman 433/256 ITR 1 (Delhi) (FB)/2002 SCC OnLine Del 441. It held that the decision in Kelvinator cannot possibly be construed as having laid down a principle that even if the AO had not examined a particular subject matter or failed to express an opinion, it must be presumed that such an opinion had in fact been formed. This clarification was rendered in the context…

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incomet Tax. Circle- Ltu -2, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1678/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C NareshFor Respondent: ShriKrishna Kumar SR. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MISS PADMAVATHY S. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Union Bank of India vs Deputy Commissioner of Income- Union Bank Bhavan tax, Circle-(LTU) 2, Mumbai Room No.421, 4thFloor, Aayakar 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 021 020 PAN: AAACU0564G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri C Naresh Respondent by : ShriKrishna Kumar SR. DR. Date of hearing : 11/04/2025 Date of pronouncement : 23/04/2025 O R D E R PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, J.M: The instant appeal of the assessee was…

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), New Del;Hi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4853/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

…placed on the following decisions: CIT v. Foramer France: [2003] 264 ITR 566 (SC) ACIT v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd: [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SC) CIT v. Kelvinator of India: [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) [affirming CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.: [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Del) (FB)] ITO v. TechSpan India (P) Ltd. [2018] 302 CTR 74 (SC) CIT v. Usha International Limited: [2012] 348 ITR 485 (Del) (FB) 43. In the following cases it has been held that reassessment cannot be initiated unless some new/ additional fact/material/ information comes on record leading to the belief of escapement of income: BSES Rajdhani Powe…