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.

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4852/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

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…

Commr of Income Tax [TDS], Hyderabad vs. M/S Jayadarshini Housing Pvt Ltd., Hyderabad

ITTA/65/2014HC Telangana26 Mar 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Vanshika Motors (P) Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT, Circle- 2, Meerut

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6214/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 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…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…the AO received tangible information from DDIT (Investigation), Kolkata, supported by the statement of Shri Mukesh Banka, identifying the assessee as a beneficiary of accommodation entries. 1.3. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [256 ITR 1 (Del) (FB)] upheld the validity of reopening assessments based on tangible material or information, emphasizing that reassessment is not barred when fresh evidence surfaces post the original assessment. 2. Organized Tax Evasion 2.1. Investigations revealed that the assessee received accommodation entries from entities such as M/s Agarani Credit an…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 875/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…AO received tangible information from DDIT (Investigation), Kolkata, supported by the statement of Shri Mukesh Banka, identifying the assessee as a beneficiary of accommodation entries. 1. 3. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [256 ITR 1 (Del) (FB)] upheld the validity of reopening assessments based on tangible material or information, emphasizing that reassessment is not barred when fresh evidence surfaces post the original assessment. 2. Organized Tax Evasion 2. 1. Investigations revealed that the assessee received accommodation entries from entities such as M/s Agarani Credit…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

ITA 873/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…e AO received tangible information from DDIT (Investigation), Kolkata, supported by the statement of Shri Mukesh Banka, identifying the assessee as a beneficiary of accommodation entries. 1. 3. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [256 ITR 1 (Del) (FB)] upheld the validity of reopening assessments based on tangible material or information, emphasizing that reassessment is not barred when fresh evidence surfaces post the original assessment. 2. Organized Tax Evasion 2. 1. Investigations revealed that the assessee received accommodation entries from entities such as M/s Agarani Credit a…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 872/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

Kamlesh Gupta and Sons HUF, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4080/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Kamlesh Gupta & Sons Huf Ito-19(2)(2) 95-C, Mittal Towers Piramal Chamber Nariman Point, Churchgate Vs. Lalbaug, Lower Mumbai-400 021. Parel, Mumbai-12. Pan : Aaehk4734K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Asif KarmaliFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Mantri

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…sessing Officer is founded on an “information which might have been received by the Assessing Officer after completion of assessment, it may be a sound foundation for exercising power under section 147, r.w.s. 148 of the Act – CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1(Del)(FB). h) Fresh information enables the initiation of reassessment though it could have been discovered in earlier years. 177 ITR 409 (SC) Claggette Brachi Co. Ltd. 5.3 In the impugned case, the Ld. AO has clearly mentioned that the information was received from another officer of Department of Central Circle that the appellant received an acc…

Impressions Services Private Limited, Delhi vs. ADIT Circle 10(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3275/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

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…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Khemka Stuart Leisure Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6215/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

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

Strides Pharma Science Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3514/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R

Section 115JSection 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 37(1)

…the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (256 ITR 1) (Del.) (FB). 7. We further find that the notice u/s 148 of the Act is dated 30/03/2019 which makes it more than four years from the impugned assessment year, therefore, 1st proviso to Section 147 of the Act squarely apply and the AO is required to mention what material facts were not fully and truly disclosed by the assessee. There is no whisper f…

Mack Star Marketing Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4994/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yash VarmaniFor Respondent: Mr. R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147

…ent proceeding. The grounds of cross objection are accordingly allowed." 6.1 Similarly, in the case of Union Bank of India (supra) the Co- ordinate Bench has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 and held that 'change of opinion' cannot be allowed even within the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The relevant finding of the Tribunal(supra) is reproduced as under: "9.6 In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it is settled that reopening of the assessment on the material and inf…

Rahul Bajpai, Idgah Chowk vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Shri Ram Plaza

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 348/RPR/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.348/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rahul Bajpai Idgah Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Aexpb4410L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CA

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

…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 29 Rahul Bajpai Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur thereafter had been 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 Sec. 147 of the Act for the failure of the A.O to apply his mind in the original assessment proceeding…

Power Links Transmission Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4599/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Powerlinks, Transmission Ltd. Vs Additional 10Th Floor, Dlf Tower-A, Commissioner Of District Centre, Jasola, Income Tax, Spl. Range New Delhi. 7 New Delhi Pan No. Aabct7775M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3ASection 80I

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Powerlinks, Transmission Ltd. Vs Additional 10th Floor, DLF Tower-A, Commissioner Of District Centre, Jasola, Income Tax, Spl. Range New Delhi. 7 New Delhi PAN No. AABCT7775M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellants by Shri Vishal Kalra, Ms. Sumisha Murgai & Shri Kashish Gupta, Advocates Respondent by Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT DR Date of hearing: 13/11/2024 Date of Pronouncement: 03/01/2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR: JUDICIAL MEMBE…

Ethix Healthcare, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, both on the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 147 and on merits of the case, the order of the AO as well as the ld CIT(A) is hereby set-aside and matter is decided in favour of the assessee

ITA 501/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri VivekVardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80Section 80I

…s clearly a case of change of opinion which is not permissible for invocation of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act and in support reliance was placed on the decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1. Elaborating further, it was submitted that the amount of Rs. 30,85,390/- was received by the assessee towards packaging material etc as per the requirement of the party and corresponding expenses have been debited in the P&L Account and during the course of original assessment proceedings, the AO has examined the said fact and duly verified the re…

Sunitha, Coimbatore vs. PCIT -1, Coim, Batore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2013/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, IRS, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 69

…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). 16. 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…

Bhargavi Marketers, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward 6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 732/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2016-17 Bhargavi Marketers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aapfb3209D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Venkata Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri V. Venkata Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr.A.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 270ASection 40Section 40a

…g the order of the Assessing Officer though the reopening of the assessment was based on change of opinion by the Assessing Officer in the case of duly supported by the decision of the honourable Apex court in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd (2002) 256 ITR 1(Del)(FB) approved by the supreme court in (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) which has been held to be against the provisions of law by various appellate authorities and hence the order of the ld CIT(A) required to be quashed.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee, a firm e-filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 13-10-2016, declaring…

V.S. Natarajan, Thanjavur vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), Chennai

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1604/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1603 & 1604/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Valikaramuthu Subramanian Assistant Commissioner Of Natarajan, V. Income-Tax, No. 104-B, 3Rd Street, Central Circle -3(2), Mangalapuram, Medical College Chennai. Road, Voc Nagar, Thanjavur – 613 007. [Pan: Acypn-0616-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 263

…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). In light of the above arguments, the Ld.AR prayed for setting aside the order of the Ld.PCIT. 10. Per contra, the Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.PCIT and prayed for upholding the same by dismissing the appeal of the asses…

V.S. Natarajan, Thanjavur vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), Chennai

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1603/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 263

…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). In light of the above arguments, the Ld.AR prayed for setting aside the order of the Ld.PCIT. 10. Per contra, the Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.PCIT and prayed for upholding the same by dismissing the appeal of the asses…

Faiveley Transport Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Hosur vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1598/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80

…usted 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 ITA No.1598 /Chny/2024 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). 10. 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…