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 367,181 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.

Ai Champdany Industries Ltd vs. Commissioner, Income Tax, Central - II Kolkata, West Bengal

In the result, we find that the order of the

ITA/32/2005HC Calcutta16 Sept 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 80H

…ld give arbitrary powers to the assessing officers to reopen the assessment on the basis of the mere “change of opinion” which cannot be per se reason to reopen. In fact, the CIT(A) took note of the decision in Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] which was subsequently affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned decision. Taking note of the factual position namely, with regard to the proceedings initiated under Section 154 of the Act, the CIT(A) held that before the reassessment the opinion of the assessing officer underwent a series of changes from the ori…

M/S Anu Cashews, Kollam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kollam

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

ITA 700/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 The Assistant M/S. Anu Cashews, Commissioner Of Parameswar Nagar, Income Tax, Kollam. Circle – 1, Pan: Aadfa7642K Vs. Kollam. Appellant Respondent : Shri G. Surendranath Rao, Assessee By Ca : Smt J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. Revenue By Ar Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 10/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Pcit, Thiruvananthapuram U/S. 263 Of The Act On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Against Law & Facts. 2. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Concluding That The Ao Had Completed The Assessment Without Verification & Application Of Mind. During The Original Assessment Proceedings The Ao Had Sought All Information On The Deduction Claimed Under Chapter Via. He Had Issued A Notice U/S 142(1) Dated 23.05.2017, In Which Inter Alia He Had Called For Reconciliation Of The Large Deduction Claimed U/S 80(Ia) With The Books Of Account

For Respondent: Shri G. Surendranath Rao

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…he Ld.AO.  CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bombay)  CIT vs. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. reported in 366 ITR 593 (Calcutta High Court)  NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT-V 45 reported in 392 ITR 426 (Del HC)  CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1 (Del HC) 6. Assessee has also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of CIT vs. Accel Transmatic Systems Ltd. reported in [2010] 230 CTR 206 (Kerala) wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that the assessee cannot claim deduction u/s. 80IA in excess of the gross total income computed no matter the eligible amounts may be h…

Gmr Air Cargo & Aerospace Engineering Ltd(Successor to Gmr Hyderabad Air Cargo & Logistics Pvt Ltd), Shamshabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 183/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Gmr Air Cargo & Vs. Ito,Ward-2(3) Aerospace Engineering Signature Towers Ltd.(Successor To Gmr Kondapur, Kothaguda Hyderabad Air Cargo & Opp. Botanical Gardens Logistics Pvt Ltd.) R.R.District Rajiv Gandhi International Hyderabad-500 084 Airport, Samshabad Hyderabad-500 409

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37

…m 335 (Hyderabad - Trib.) viii. CIT, Patiala v. State Bank of Patiala [2016] 70 taxmann.com 36 (SC) 14. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that reopening based on mere change of opinion is bad in law. i. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (FB) (256 ITR 1) (Del.HC) ii. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd (320 . ITR 561) (SC) iii. ACIT vs. ICICI Securities Primary . Dealership Ltd. (348 ITR 299) (SC) iv. Ganga Saran & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 1 [(1981) 130 ITR 1] (SC) v. Kohinoor Hatcheries (P.) 1 Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 76 taxmann.com 150 (AP.HC) vi. OHM Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. v. 1…

ACIT, Kancheepuram vs. Sadasivan Jayabalan, Kanchipuram

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

ITA 189/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:189/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2012 - 2013 The Acit, Shri Sadasivan Jayabalan, Circle – 1, Vs. No.243, Eswara Nagar, Kancheepuram. Main Road, Veppampattu, Tiruvallur Taluk & District Pincode – 602 024 Pan: Aqqpj 7037A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 46ASection 56(2)(vii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीमहावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं"ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"यके सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:189/CHNY/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2012 - 2013 The ACIT, Shri Sadasivan Jayabalan, Circle – 1, Vs. No.243, Eswara Nagar, Kancheepuram. Main Road, Veppampattu, Tiruvallur Taluk & District Pincode – 602 024 PAN: AQQPJ 7037A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appel…

Gmr Energy Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 526/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…itution, which empowers the court to pass any order in a case in order to do ‘complete justice’. (pp 477 and 478 of the report) 5.5 This well-settled principle of law has also been accepted in the following decisions: (1) CIT V. Kalvinator of India Ltd (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Delhi)(FB). In this case assessment was reopened on the basis of change of opinion and it was held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court that such assessment could not be reopened as it was based on change of opinion, the Assessing Officer did not have such power as it will be tentamounting to do an act which could not be directly under the statute. Thus, t…

Gmr Energy Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 513/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

M/S. Interglobe Aviation Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed and impugned additions shall be deleted by Ld

ITA 751/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. Interglobe Aviation Ltd, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Central Wing, Ground Floor, Income Tax (Dcit), Thapar House-124, Janpath, Circle-11, New Delhi-110003 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabci2726B

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

…en a possible view at the relevant point of time. The appeals are accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. " 12.3 Hon’ble High Court in its above judgment following its earlier Full Bench decision in case of Kelvinator of India reported in 256 ITR 1 (Del)(FB) = 2003-TII-19-HC-DEL-WR-LB has also observed that once regular assessment is made u/s 143(3) of the Act. when a presumption can be raised then the order has been passed upon an application of mind. Since as on date of passing of the original assessment order and on the date of passing of the impugned order the position of law as narrated…

ACIT - 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. (No Merged With Hdfc Bank Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6186/MUM/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar/Chaitanya JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Deharia (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6186/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2002-03) ACIT-2(3)(1) बिधम/ M/s. Lord Krishna Bank R. No.552, 5th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. (no merged with HDFC Road, Mumbai-400020. Bank Ltd.) HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACL4704F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Yogesh Thar/Chaitanya Joshi Revenue by: Shri Ashish Deharia (Sr. AR) सुनवाई की तारीख…

ITO, Ward-8, Vapi vs. Shri Sajit Jeendranath Biswas, Valsad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 137/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.136 & 137/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Sanjit Jitendranath Biswas, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3, 49-76, Behind Bhagyodaya Hotel, Vapi Balda-Pardi, Vapi-396195. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afrpb3882K (Assessee)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) The Ito, Ward-3, Vs. Sanjit Jitendranath Biswas, Vapi 49-76, Behind Bhagyodaya Hotel, Balda-Pardi, Vapi-396195. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afrpb3882K (Assessee)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) Assessee By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar Respondent By Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr 13/05/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2022

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…reopening of assessment clearly amounted to change of opinion applying the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd (supra), therefore, the reopening is not sustainable. We note that in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1, the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court was considering a case of reopening u/s 147 within 4 years from the end of the assessment year. The Court held that when a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of section 143 (3) of the Act, a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind. It was held that if it…

Ibm India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 584/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 29Section 36(1)(vii)Section 50B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/s. IBM India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner of Arcade, Income-tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Bangalore. Vs. PAN: AAACI4403L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ajay Rotti, CA : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Revenue by Addl. CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 29-03-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 13-06-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against order dat…

Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 407/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…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 ITA Nos.583/Bang/2019, 299 & 407/Bang/2020 Page 7 of 43 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 assessmen…

M/S. Indianoil Skytaking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

M/S Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 583/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

Hsbc Asset Management (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.1 raised by assessee is allowed and assessment order framed found to be without jurisdiction

ITA 7292/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalhsbc Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Mercantile Bank Chamber, 16 Veer Nariman, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aabch0007N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-1(1)(2) Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Niraj Sheth, Ar Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 13.10.2017 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: The Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Distinct & Separate & Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. On The Facts & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 6, Mumbai [‘Cit(A)’] Erred In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Initiated After Four Years From The End Of Relevant Assessment Year, Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Made & The Appellant Had Disclosed Fully & Truly All Material Facts Necessary

For Appellant: Sh. Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)Section 40A(9)

…ning under section 148 of the Act on same material available on record and in absence of change in law is bad-in-law and void. (d) In this regard, we invite Your Good self attention to the decision in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (Delhi) (FB) (256 ITR 1) wherein it has been observed as under: “An order of assessment can be passed either in terms of sub-section (1) of section 143 or sub-section (3) of section 143. When a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of the sub-section (3) of section 143 a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on “application of mind. It is…

Lokesh Talanki, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 261/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Waghale CAFor Respondent: Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman Addln CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 54F

…‘reason to believe’ that any ‘income has escaped assessment’ where the original assessment is completed accepting the return of income filed by the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT, Delhi vs M/S. Kelvinator Of India Page 9 of 23 Ltd, 256 ITR 1 has considered a similar issue where the court has held that 18. From a bare perusal of the provisions contained in Section 147 of the said Act, as it stood up to 31st March 1989, it is evident that to confer jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act two conditions were required to be satisfied viz.; (i) the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe tha…

ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. M/S K.R. Pulp & Papers Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

ITA 5064/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…TA.No.5064/Del./2017 M/s. K.R. Pulp and Papers Ltd., New Delhi. legitimately re-open the completed assessment. In absence of this objective 'trigger', the AO does not possess jurisdiction to re-open the assessment.' In CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 120021 256 ITR 1/123 Taxman 433 (Delhi) it was observed that an order that has been purportedly passed without application of mind could not itself confer jurisdiction upon the AO to reopen the proceeding "without anything further" as that would amount to "giving a premium to an authority exercising quasi-judicial function to take benefit of its own wrong". In CIT…

Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Texas Instruments (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

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

ITA 525/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 115Section 115QSection 143(3)Section 246A

…IT(TP)ANo.525 /Bang/2019 M/s. Texas Instruments (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.525/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Texas Instruments (India) Pvt. Ltd. JCIT (LTU) No.66/3, Bagmane Tech Park Bengaluru Vs. C V Raman Nagar Post Bengaluru 560 093 PAN No: AAACT5445M APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.275/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Texas Instruments (India) JCIT (LTU) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bengaluru Bengaluru 560 093 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant…

M/S Texas Instruments (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 275/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 115Section 115QSection 143(3)Section 246A

Historic Tbs Asia Llc, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

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

ITA 1274/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 199Section 234BSection 27i

…d reasons so recorded clearly show that it is re-application of mind on same set of facts. 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd 228 CTR 488 upheld the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in 256 ITR 1 and has held as under: “….however, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe" failing which, we are afraid, Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re- open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to re-open. We must also keep in mind the con…

Hyundai Motor India Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT Ltu-II, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1836/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…nce, 264 ITR 566 (2003) 2) Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Foramer France, 247 ITR 436 (2001) 3) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (2010) 4) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd., 256 ITR 1 (2002) 5) Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Elgi Finance Ltd., 286 ITR 674 (2006) 8. Whereas, the ld.CIT-DR in relation to slump sales of CCP division by assessee to Mobis India Ltd., argued that actually this is I.T.A. No.1836/Chny/2017 15 not slump sale and for this, he cited a reason that in view of the Business Transfer Agreement pl…