How many judgments cite CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.?

1,673 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), 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 147, Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 142(1), Section 151, Section 143(2).

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

320 ITR 561Supreme Court of India2010#18 most cited

What is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. authority for?

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

1,673

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 of India · Section 147 · Section 148 · reassessment proceedings · mere change of opinion · fresh tangible material · escapement of income · reason to believe · validity of reassessment

Also reported as

187 Taxmann 3122 SCC 723187 Taxmann.com 312

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 143(3)Section 148 Section 142(1)Section 151 Section 143(2)Section 68 Section 139

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

kelvinator fresh tangible material mere change of opinion first proviso to section 147 material facts necessary for assessment full and true disclosure change of opinion beyond four years live link tangible material escapement of income reason to believe

Judgments citing CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

Shri Sandip Harkishan Marwadi, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Circle-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/RJT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Apr 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 164/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) Sandip Harkishan Marwadi Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Cas, Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), 1St Floor, "Sakar", Income Tax Office, Racecourse Dr. Radhakrishnan Road, Road, Sadar, Rajkot - 360001. Opp. Rajkumar College, Gujarat Rajkot-360001,(Gujarat) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adbpm1302R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26 / 03 /2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/ 04 /2026

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. SR. DR

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…erefore, re-opening of the assessments is liable to be set aside/quashed. Accordingly, the orders of the assessing officer is not sustainable and hence deserve to be quashed. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 has held that the assessing officer can reopen an assessment provided there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that there was escapement of income. Reasons must have live link with the formation of the belief. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dolatram Ravatmull 87 ITR 349 has held that there should be some direct nexus…

Rohan Hemant Thakkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 22 3 2, Mumbai

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

ITA 7105/MUM/2025[2011 - 2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2026

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Mr. Rohan Hemant Thakkar, Income Tax Officer 22(3)(2), A 804 Prayog Building Wing A Kautilya Bhavan, Opposite Galaxy Hotel Prabhat Colony Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Road No.2 Bandra East, Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 055 Pan:Agnpt4221D (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM Mr. Rohan Hemant Thakkar, Income Tax Officer 22(3)(2), A 804 Prayog Building Wing A Kautilya Bhavan, Opposite Galaxy Hotel Prabhat Colony Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Road No.2 Bandra East, Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 055 PAN:AGNPT4221D (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri Hansraj Sanghvi, AR Assessee by Respondent by : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 17.04.2026 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM: This appeal has been filed by…

G S Buildwell Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6581/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] G.S.Buildwell Pvt.Ltd. Vs Ito A-12, Swasthya Vihar, Ward-10(1) East Delhi, Delhi-110092. Delhi Pan-Aaccg1781H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kr. Dhanistha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08.04.2026

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

…rt of the notice proceed on a mere change of opinion and would be completely without jurisdiction" Further, reliance is placed on the following authorities: - CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Delhi) (Full Bench); - CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.: 320 ITR 561 (SC); - CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310(Del); - CIT vs. ForanerFranch 264 ITR 566 (SC) - Indian Oil Corporation 159 ITR 956(SC) - Associated Stone Industry Limited 224ITR 560 (SC) - CIT vs. Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd378 ITR 351 (Del.) Further, it is apparent from reason recorded that the Ld AO has merely reproduced the report of inves…

Lasco Chemie Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(2), New Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 3811/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlasco Chemie Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-15(2), Delhi 10489 Kalptaru, Sadar Thana Road Motia Khan, New Delhi 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcl 3502 E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250

…filed during the assessment for the relevant assessment year. Thus, initiation of reassessment is merely a change of opinion and not sustainable [refer 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)]. Re (e): Reassessment is barred by limitation in terms of section 149 of the Act 33. In this regard, it is respectfully submitted, that proceedings initiated under section 147 cannot be regarded as having been validly initiated unless P a g e | 17 Lasco Chemie (P) Ltd.…

Mamta Sanjay Dand, Buldhana vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1, Khamgaon, Buldhana

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 137/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roymamta Sanjay Dand, Ito, Ward – 1, Khamgaon Akdo Jain Society, Vs Near Govind Nagar, At Post Malkhapur, Dist. Buldhana, Maharashtra-443101 Pan : Azgpd 6958 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjeev Mutha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2026

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Mutha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69A

…verification purposes and it must be based on reason to believe, not reason to suspect. We further observe that reopening is mere ‘change of opinion’, which is not sustainable in law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) wherein it has been held that “reopening of assessment u/s 147 cannot be based on mere change of opinion; there must be tangible material to form a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment”. Therefore, the order for reopening of assessment is not justifiable in the absence of any fresh tangible material establishing live nexus. E…

Chhabi Lata Sahu, Rourkela vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Rourkela

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 626/CTK/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Chhabi Lata Sahu Ito, Ward-4, Rourkela

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Sarangi & Bishwa Jyoti Pattnaik, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Chhabi Lata Sahu ITO, Ward-4, Rourkela Block-D, Annapurna Market, Vs Koel Nagar, Rourkela, Odisha- 769014. (PAN: AEOPS8319G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S. K. Sarangi & Bishwa Jyoti Pattnaik, ARs Revenue by : Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 16.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026 ORDER PER BENCH: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(Appeal) ADDL/J…

Granules India Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1289/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.1289/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Granules India Limited Vs. Dcit- Circle -2(1) 15Th Floor, Granules Tower Signature Tower, Botanical Garden Road Sy. No. 6(P) Of Kondaput Kondapur, Hyderabad – 500084 Sy. No. 37 Of Kothaguda Telangana Opp. Botanical Gardens Serilingampalluy, R.R. District Pan: Aaacg7369K Hyderabad-500084, Telangana (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…capement of assessment, but purely on borrowed satisfaction which is not permissible under law. In this regard, he relied upon certain judicial pronouncements including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., [320 ITR 561 (SC)]. The appellant had also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [(1979) 119 ITR 0996] and the following cases: - i. IL & FS Investment Managers Ltd. v. ITO & Ors., 2008 TaxPub(DT) 2376 (Bom-HC) 13 Granules India Limited ii. Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar, 2004 T…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Oasys Cybermatics Pvt Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 3102/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mr. ARV Srinivasan, CIT for Mr. Bipin C. N., CITFor Respondent: Mr. Ravi Kannan &

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)Section 5(3)

…ition and held that the reopening of the assessment was prompted by a mere change of opinion and amounted to review of the earlier assessment which is impermissible in law, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 SC. In view of the said judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, the CIT(A) held that the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s. 147 of the Act stood quashed and consequently the additions made in the reassessment order could not survive. Accordingly, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete all the additions made in the order passed u/s.…

Starshine Land Developers Private Limited, Andheri East, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-5, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai

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

ITA 2148/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 148Section 23(5)Section 263

…vt. Ltd. [(2024) 116 ITR (T) 247 (Mumbai)], and C.R. Developments Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT[ITA No.4277/Mum/2012] The Ld. AR further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India 3 Starshine Land Developers Private Limited Ltd.(320 ITR 561) and the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Marico Ltd. vs. ACIT(425 ITR 177)to contend that once queries are raised, application of mind by the Assessing Officer should be presumed. 5. Per contra, the Ld. DR strongly supported the order of the Ld. PCIT and submitted that the reassessment order itself demonstrates complete non-applicat…

Virchow Petrochemical Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1191/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…a “change of opinion” as against that held by his predecessor cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down. The Ld.AR to support his contention had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). Also, the Ld. AR had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Hindustan Marble (P.) Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2023) 146 taxmann.com 255 (Gujarat), wherein the impugned reassessment proceedings initiated based on a “change of opinion” was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court. 22. Per con…

Mark Steels Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2603/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…onsidering all the entries available on record, the reopening of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act was merely a change of opinion and directly in conflict with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in having upheld the reassessment order u/s 147/143(3) of the Act dated 27.11.2018 and addition of Rs.50,00,000/- on the alleged ground of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in spite of ITA No.: 2603/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mark Steels Limited. the fact that in the Remand Report dated 19…

Bangalore Union Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2483/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (by Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 147Section 2(22)(e)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार "ग"र, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम$ BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2483/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bangalore Union Services Private Limited, DCIT, Unit No.705, Delta Wing, vs. Corporate Circle -1(2), Raheja Towers, 7th Floor, Chennai. 177, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. [PAN:AABCB-3369-B] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) अपीलाथ' क* ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. S. Sridhar…

Meena Jewels and Pearls, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1225/HYD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ssessee cannot be doubted and reason for reopening of the assessment beyond 04 years from the end of the assessment year under consideration. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions: i. CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii. DCIT vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., [2021] 125 taxmann.com 71 (SC) iii. PCIT vs. Farmson Pharmaceuticals Gujarat (P.) Ltd., [2025] 473 ITR 639 (Gujarat-HC) 5.1. He has also referred to the decisions of this Tribunal dated 25.05.2018 for the assessment year 2013- 2014 in ITA.No.2016/Hyd./2017 in assessee's own case whereby…

DCIT-19(1), Mumbai vs. Nimesh Pravinchandra Mehta, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 8102/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 8102/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 DCIT-19(1), Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Mumbai-400012. Appellant Vs. Nimesh Pravinchandra Mehta, 10, 4th floor, Kalyan Bldg. No. 8, Khadilkar Road, Girgaun, Mumbai-400 004. PAN NO. AAOPM 7984 P Respondent Assessee by Revenue by Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : Mr. Ketan Vajani, CA : Mr. Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. DR : 12/02/2026 : 25/02/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed agai…

ACIT, CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4321/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 1

…he Act, but merely to review the original assessment order passed by his own office. Therefore, the same is invalid in the eyes of law. 3.5. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 521, where it held that- “Though the power to reopen under the amended s. 147 is much wider, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words “reason to believe” failing which s. 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.…