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 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.

Global Green Company Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

ITA 3899/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: FixedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri Ankit AggarwalFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…marily pointed out that reopening being beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, in the absence of new tangible material, the reopening is bad for which he has relied on the following:- i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del); ii) Rubix Trading (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, 108 taxmann.com 176 (Bom); iii) Bajaj Allianz vs. DCIT (2020) 113 taxmann.com 238 (Bom); iv) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 355 ITR 188 (Del); and 3 ITAs No.3910 to 3913/Del/2018 ITAs No.3898 & 3899/Del/2019 v) Tulsi Shipping P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2018) 169 ITD 629 (Mumbai Trib.) 3.1 It is furthe…

Global Green Company Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

ITA 3898/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri Ankit AggarwalFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…marily pointed out that reopening being beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, in the absence of new tangible material, the reopening is bad for which he has relied on the following:- i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del); ii) Rubix Trading (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, 108 taxmann.com 176 (Bom); iii) Bajaj Allianz vs. DCIT (2020) 113 taxmann.com 238 (Bom); iv) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 355 ITR 188 (Del); and 3 ITAs No.3910 to 3913/Del/2018 ITAs No.3898 & 3899/Del/2019 v) Tulsi Shipping P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2018) 169 ITD 629 (Mumbai Trib.) 3.1 It is furthe…

Global Green Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

ITA 3913/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri Ankit AggarwalFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…marily pointed out that reopening being beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, in the absence of new tangible material, the reopening is bad for which he has relied on the following:- i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del); ii) Rubix Trading (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, 108 taxmann.com 176 (Bom); iii) Bajaj Allianz vs. DCIT (2020) 113 taxmann.com 238 (Bom); iv) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 355 ITR 188 (Del); and 3 ITAs No.3910 to 3913/Del/2018 ITAs No.3898 & 3899/Del/2019 v) Tulsi Shipping P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2018) 169 ITD 629 (Mumbai Trib.) 3.1 It is furthe…

Global Green Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

ITA 3912/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri Ankit AggarwalFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…marily pointed out that reopening being beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, in the absence of new tangible material, the reopening is bad for which he has relied on the following:- i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del); ii) Rubix Trading (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, 108 taxmann.com 176 (Bom); iii) Bajaj Allianz vs. DCIT (2020) 113 taxmann.com 238 (Bom); iv) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 355 ITR 188 (Del); and 3 ITAs No.3910 to 3913/Del/2018 ITAs No.3898 & 3899/Del/2019 v) Tulsi Shipping P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2018) 169 ITD 629 (Mumbai Trib.) 3.1 It is furthe…

Global Green Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

ITA 3911/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri Ankit AggarwalFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…marily pointed out that reopening being beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, in the absence of new tangible material, the reopening is bad for which he has relied on the following:- i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del); ii) Rubix Trading (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, 108 taxmann.com 176 (Bom); iii) Bajaj Allianz vs. DCIT (2020) 113 taxmann.com 238 (Bom); iv) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 355 ITR 188 (Del); and 3 ITAs No.3910 to 3913/Del/2018 ITAs No.3898 & 3899/Del/2019 v) Tulsi Shipping P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2018) 169 ITD 629 (Mumbai Trib.) 3.1 It is furthe…

Global Green Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

ITA 3910/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri Ankit AggarwalFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…marily pointed out that reopening being beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, in the absence of new tangible material, the reopening is bad for which he has relied on the following:- i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del); ii) Rubix Trading (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, 108 taxmann.com 176 (Bom); iii) Bajaj Allianz vs. DCIT (2020) 113 taxmann.com 238 (Bom); iv) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 355 ITR 188 (Del); and 3 ITAs No.3910 to 3913/Del/2018 ITAs No.3898 & 3899/Del/2019 v) Tulsi Shipping P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2018) 169 ITD 629 (Mumbai Trib.) 3.1 It is furthe…

V.K.Nanavaty Share and Stock Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2614/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2614/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) V. K. Nanavaty Share & बिधम/ Ito, Ward-4(2)(4) R. No. 647, 6Th Floor, Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd Vs. R-709, Rotunda Building, Aaykar Bhavan, Bombay Stock Exchange, Maharishi Karve Road, M. S. Marg, Fort, Mumbai- Churchgate, Mumbai- 400023. 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv9670N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravikant Pathak Revenue By: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 30.05.2023 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of The Reopening By Ao (Jurisdiction) U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). So The Legal Issue Is Taken Up First.

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…uspicion. Both the conditions must co-exist in order to confer jurisdiction on the Assessing officer. (Refer Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in PCIT Vs. L & T Ltd 268 Taxman 391). The Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinar of India (256 ITR 1) held that AO has power to re-open, provided he has tangible material to form the belief that the income had escaped assessment [refer decision in (i) Balakrishna Hiralal Wani v ITO (2010) 321 ITR 519 (Bom) (HC) and (ii) Dempo Brothers Pvt. Ltd v ACIT (2018) 403 ITR 196 (Bom) (HC)]. Another aspect one has to keep in mind is that if an AO during the…

M/S Josan Industries, Jalalabad vs. DCIT, Cl-1, Intl. Taxation, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 66/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 64 To 66/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Josan Industries, Vs. The Dcit Circle-1, बनाम Jalalabad, International Taxation, H.O., Guruharshai, Chandigarh Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaafj7294F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kahlon, CIT DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 234Section 68

…nt order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. It has been contended that as such, there has just been a change of opinion, which cannot be a basis of reopening of an already completed assessment. Reliance has been placed on ‘CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.’ ,(2002) 256 ITR 1 (FB) (Delhi) (HC), which it has been stated stands approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘ITO v. Techspan India (P) Ltd.’, (2018) 404 ITR 10 (SC). It has been contended that further, there has not been failure on the part of the Assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts in respect of all the issues under scrutiny and that as such,…

M/S Josan Industries, Jalalabad vs. DCIT, Cl-1, Intl. Taxation, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 65/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 64 To 66/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Josan Industries, Vs. The Dcit Circle-1, बनाम Jalalabad, International Taxation, H.O., Guruharshai, Chandigarh Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaafj7294F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kahlon, CIT DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 234Section 68

…nt order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. It has been contended that as such, there has just been a change of opinion, which cannot be a basis of reopening of an already completed assessment. Reliance has been placed on ‘CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.’ ,(2002) 256 ITR 1 (FB) (Delhi) (HC), which it has been stated stands approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘ITO v. Techspan India (P) Ltd.’, (2018) 404 ITR 10 (SC). It has been contended that further, there has not been failure on the part of the Assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts in respect of all the issues under scrutiny and that as such,…

M/S Josan Industries, Jalalabad vs. DCIT, Cl-1, Intl. Taxation, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 64/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 64 To 66/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Josan Industries, Vs. The Dcit Circle-1, बनाम Jalalabad, International Taxation, H.O., Guruharshai, Chandigarh Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaafj7294F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kahlon, CIT DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 234Section 68

…nt order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. It has been contended that as such, there has just been a change of opinion, which cannot be a basis of reopening of an already completed assessment. Reliance has been placed on ‘CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.’ ,(2002) 256 ITR 1 (FB) (Delhi) (HC), which it has been stated stands approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘ITO v. Techspan India (P) Ltd.’, (2018) 404 ITR 10 (SC). It has been contended that further, there has not been failure on the part of the Assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts in respect of all the issues under scrutiny and that as such,…

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

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

ITA 4081/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: PendingITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

…arge is deferred to a future date: a) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.: 37 ITR 1 (SC) b) Metal Box (P) Limited (1969): 73 ITR 53 (SC) c) United Commercial Bank v. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC) d) Bharat Earth Movers: 245 ITR 428 (SC) e) Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1 confirmed by SC in 320 ITR 561 f) CIT v Vinitec Corpn. (P) Ltd.: 278 ITR 337 (Delhi) g) National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. JCIT : 98 ITD 278 (Hyd. ITAT) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. 312 ITR 254 has held that:- g) “21. In conclusion, we may state that in order to find out if an expe…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Bhilai, Durg vs. Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd., Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 241/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.241/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 1(1), V Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd, Bhilai, Durg S Bsp Premises, Slag Yard Road (Opp Sector 4 Nmoh), Bhilai Pan: Aadcb1675Q (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri. R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 25-10-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 30-10-2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri. R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)(x)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…and (iii) the Assessing Officer does not have the power of review on the same set of facts and . 5.2.4 I am fortified by the-following' decisions. the Apex Court as well as various High Courts which are listed below. a). CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1(FB)(Delhi)(HC) Approved by Supreme Court in (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) ITO v. Techspan India (P) Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 10 (SC) wherein the Apex court has held that re-examining the assessees claim which has already been examined during original scrutiny assessment and with no new material is not permissible. b) In ACIT v. Maria) Ltd. (2020) 272 Taxman 1…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-1), Raipur vs. M/S Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd., Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 73/RPR/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.73/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central Circle)-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd. H. No.11, Jalvihar Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aahcs7999A ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri, Sakshi Gopal Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(2)(b)

…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 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 proceedings to the material which according to him, is rele…

ITO, Corp Ward -1(1), Chennai vs. R Sundaravelu, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 3465/CHNY/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 47

…ve that income had escaped assessment as the transaction of issue of shares against transfer of Intellectual Property Rights was not disclosed by the appellant. The appellant had relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd 256 ITR 1 and Madras High Court & CO No.20/Chny/2020 decision in the case of TANMAC [2017] 78 taxmann.com 155 (Madras)., However, both these decision do not have any application in the present case. As already explained this is not a case of change of opinion as there was no expression of opinion on the chargeability to tax on the transfer of Intellectual Pr…

Showtime Events India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 23(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4239/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Raghvendra Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154

…d to be not expounding a good law as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 292 ITR 49. The relevant part reads as under: “The Full Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 had opined that the amendments introduced into Section 147 with effect from 1.4.1989 have not altered the position that a mere change of opinion of the AO was not sufficient ground for embarking on a reassessment. Calcutta Discount was duly considered and applied by the Full Bench. The Full Bench further observed that an order of assessment must be…

Forever Flourishing Fin. & Inv. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (CC)-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

ITA 6120/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal/Ajay DagaFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 6040 & 6120/MUM/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Forever Flourishing Fin. & DCIT(CC)-3(4), Inv. Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-3(4), Room No. Vs. A-401, Pearl Arcade, Off J P 1915, 19th floor, Air India Road, Dawood Baug Lane, Building, Nariman Point, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400058. PAN NO. AAACF 4311 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Ashok Bansal/Ajay Daga Revenue by : Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR : Date of Hearing 13/07/2023 Date o…

Forever Flourishing Fin & Inv. Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

ITA 6040/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal/Ajay DagaFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 6040 & 6120/MUM/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Forever Flourishing Fin. & DCIT(CC)-3(4), Inv. Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-3(4), Room No. Vs. A-401, Pearl Arcade, Off J P 1915, 19th floor, Air India Road, Dawood Baug Lane, Building, Nariman Point, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400058. PAN NO. AAACF 4311 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Ashok Bansal/Ajay Daga Revenue by : Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR : Date of Hearing 13/07/2023 Date o…

Puri Oil Mills Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-20(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7726/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 44A

…decision being of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2009-2011 of 2003 and Civil Appeal No. 2520 of 2008 decided on 18th January, 2010 which approves this Court‟s Full Bench decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator of India Limited:256 ITR 1 (Del.) (HC). The power of re-assessment is different from the power of review. The Assessing Officer has been given the power to re-asses under Section 147 upon certain conditions being satisfied. The Assessing Officer does not have the power of review. If a change of opinion were to be permitted as a ground for re-assessment then it would amount t…

Puri Oil Mills Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 20(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6971/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 44A

…decision being of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2009-2011 of 2003 and Civil Appeal No. 2520 of 2008 decided on 18th January, 2010 which approves this Court‟s Full Bench decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator of India Limited:256 ITR 1 (Del.) (HC). The power of re-assessment is different from the power of review. The Assessing Officer has been given the power to re-asses under Section 147 upon certain conditions being satisfied. The Assessing Officer does not have the power of review. If a change of opinion were to be permitted as a ground for re-assessment then it would amount t…

Jt. CIT (Ods) - CC -1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…on of the words ‘reason to believe’, the Parliament reintroduced the said expression and deleted the word ‘opinion’ on the ground that it would vest arbitrary powers in the Assessing Officer." The Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Del.) [decision affirmed by the Supreme Court in [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC)] held that if two interpretations are possible, the interpretation which upholds constitutionality, it is trite, should be Page No. 37 ITA NO. 1789 & 1466/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2013-14) ITA NO. 222 & 220/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2014-15) M/s UltraTech Cement Limited favoured. In the event it…