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 367,181 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.

Nina Kshetry, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int.Tax. 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1878/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

…accepted by the Ld. AO during the course of the original assessment proceedings as the same would amount to change of opinion which is impermissible in the eyes of law. The Ld AR relied on the following decisions: 1. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 2. Jindal Photo Films Ltd., [1998] 234 ITR 170 (Delhi) 3. CIT v. Usha International [2012] 348 ITR 485 (Del) [FB] 4. Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT, [2009] 308 ITR 195 (Borm.) 12. The ld. AR further argued that the Approval under Section 151 is based on borrowed satisfaction, without independent application of mind and is mechanical in law and relie…

Hersh Vardhan Kshetry, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax. 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1877/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

Sangita Kshetry, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int.Tax. 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1876/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

Assisstant Commisioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Estra Enterprises Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1653/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. S.Senthil Kumaran, CITFor Respondent: Mr.R.Sivaraman, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 45(2)Section 53A

…to conclude that there is escapement of income from the assessment and therefore, no reason for forming a belief that the income has escaped assessment. The Id. counsel referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd 320 ITR 561 SC and submitted that an assessment cannot be reopened on the basis of mere change of opinion. In the present case, there is no alleged failure on the assessee's part to disclose all the material fact relevant for the assessment. In the present case, he also pleaded that the assessee has converted the land held as a Capital Asset into Stock-in-Tr…

DCIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Manish Uppal, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 3061/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…nd say "you accepted my lie, now your hands are tied and you can do nothing". It would be travesty of justice to allow the assessee that latitude." 9.6 A three judge Bench, of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the CIT v. Kelvinator of India [2010] 187 Taxman 312/320 ITR 561, after considering its previous decisions, re-stated the position of law as follows: *5.... where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to re-open the assessment. Therefore, post-1st April, 1989, power to re-open is much wider. However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to…

Eyegear Optics India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle - 8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1347/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…आयर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘ए’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री मधुसूदन सावयिया जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1347/Hyd/2024 & 1291/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Eyegear Optics India Vs. Dy.Commissioner of Private Limited Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-8(1) PAN : AACCE0350Q Hyderabad (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Ms.Suvibha Nolk…

Eyegear Optics India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Cricle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for

ITA 1291/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Us: On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A), Nfac Erred In:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…आयर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद 'ए' बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'A' Bench, Hyderabad श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री मधुसूदन सावडिया जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1347/Hyd/2024 & 1291/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) | Eyegear Optics India Private Limited Hyderabad PAN : AACCE0350Q (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. | Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-8(1) Hyderabad (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Repr…

DCIT Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai vs. Ruchi Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 389/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Malav Sheth, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Govindrao J. Ninawe, Sr. D/R

Section 143(3)Section 148ASection 80ISection 80i

…is the case records available with the AO which means that there was no new tangible material for the reopening of the assessment which is mandatory as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India (320 ITR 561 SC). Moreover, the very basis for reopening the assessment is erroneous inasmuch as the assessee never claimed any deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of Jetty at Jamnagar and most importantly, the assessee has been claiming the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act right from AY 2007-08 onwards and till the preceding AY, the claim was allowed and I…

DCIT Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai vs. Ruchi Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 388/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Malav Sheth, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Govindrao J. Ninawe, Sr. D/R

Section 143(3)Section 148ASection 80ISection 80i

Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Delhi vs. Artistic Finance Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

ITA 2650/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, DELHI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT (THIRD MEMBER), SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, vs ITO, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. PAN-AOOPK6335A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Neeraj Mangla, CA Respondent by Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 06.08.2025 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, V.P. : This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appea…

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

…IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(IT)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16 Mr. Akshay Kumar Rungta, Vs. ITO (International Taxation), No.3C 1st B Main, 14th Cross, Ward - 2(1) HSR Layout, Sector 6, Bangalore. Bangalore - 560 102. PAN :AJTPR 2149 D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Ravishankar S. V, Advocate Revenue by : Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 07.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 07.05.2025 ORDER Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : This appea…

Gck Stock Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 1572/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2015-2016

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 234Section 250Section 271

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री गगन गोयल, लेखा सदस्य, के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1572/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 GCK Stock Private Limited बनाम | The ITO, 135, Everest Vihar, T.N. Mishra Marg, Vs. Ward-1(4), Shyam Nagar Brijlal Pura, Jaipur. Jaipur. स्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAACA5560C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Bhupendra Shaha, C.A. राजस्व की…

Shri Navinchandra N. Patel, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 869/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dzouza, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 14ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(2)Section 69

…12. From the above, we hold that notice issued u/s. 148 for re- opening of assessment is bad in law and entire reassessment proceedings need to be quashed. Reliance is being placed on the following judgments:- i. CIT Vs. M/s. Kelvinator Of India Ltd, (2010) 2 SCC 723 (SC) “On going through the changes, quoted above, made to Section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re-opening could be done under above two conditions and fulfillment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to make a back assessment, but in section 147 of the Act [wit…

J Ray Mcdermott Engineering Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2016/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT

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

…incon (P.) Ltd., vs. ACIT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 680 (Gujarat)] iii. PCIT vs. Fibres and Fabrics International (P.) Ltd., [2022] 288 taxman 20 (SC) iv. DCIT vs. MSEB Holding Co. Ltd., [2020] 113 taxmann.com 163 (SC) v. CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) vi. ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) vii. Changepond Technologies (P.) Ltd., vs. DCIT, [2024] 168 taxmann.com 516 viii. Unitech Exhibition (P.) Ltd., vs. DCIT, [2024] 168 taxmann.com 516 (Madras) ix. Tenzing Match Works vs. DCIT, [2019] 110 taxmann.com 543 (Madras) 4.3 The Ld.AR also submitted that the reassessment is bad…

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3705/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, 3Rd Floor Maker Chamber Iv, Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. Nariman Point, S.O. Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal/Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 144BSection 144CSection 147Section 801B(9)

…t refer to any new or tangible material that surfaced subsequently. The action of the AO, therefore, constitutes a clear case of change of opinion, which is impermissible in law, as enunciated in the landmark judgment of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). 8.12 Moreover, the reasons recorded are a mere reproduction of the audit objection, despite the AO‘s initial disagreement therewith. This indicates absence of independent application of mind and renders the reassessment proceedings invalid. 8.13 On the merits, the additional depreciation had already been considered while giving effect to…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 2836/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain CA & Mr. Kunal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,‘सी’"ायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीएबीटीवक", "ाियकसद"एवं"ीएस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखासद"केसम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.: 2613 & 2732/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Cholamandalam Investment and The Deputy Commissioner of Finance Company Limited, Income Tax, Chola Crest, C 54 & C 55, V. Corporate Circle -1(1), Super B-4, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Chennai – 600 034. Guindy, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai – 600 032. [PAN: AAACC-122…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 2820/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain CA & Mr. Kunal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

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…

Akhlesh Pandey, Gwalior vs. CIT, Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 13/AGR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.13/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sh. Akhilesh Pandey Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 188/189, Line No. 2 Gwalior. Vs. Birla Nagar, Gwalior. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adqpp-7494-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. P.K. Sehgal, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30-11-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 31-03-2022. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.20.32 Lacs. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Same Is Adjudicated As Under. 2. The Assessee Being Resident Individual Is Stated To Be Engaged In Business In Proprietorship Concern Namely M/S Dhruv Constructions. The Return Of Income Was Scrutinized U/S 143(3) On 31-05-2017 Accepting The Returned Income. However, The Case Was Reopened On The Ground That The Case Was Subjected To Limited Scrutiny. One Of The Issues To Be Examined

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Sehgal, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…it could be ascertained that there was no new tangible material before Ld. AO to arrive at conclusion of escapement of income which would vitiate entire proceedings in terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561). Further, the case was reopened beyond 4 years and there was no allegation that the income had escaped assessment for failure on the part of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of particulars of its income. Considering all these facts, we quash the impugned assessment. Delving into the merits of the case has been rendered mere academic…

M/S Agra Products Pvt.Ltd., Gautam Buddha Nagar vs. Deputy C.I.T Circle -2(1)(1), Agra

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 121/AGR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.121/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Agra Products Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Circle-2(1)(1), बनाम/ Plot No. 99, Phase-Ii, Nsez, Noida, Agra Vs. Gautum Bhuddha Nagar, U.P. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aadca-3621-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Pankaj Gargh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Gargh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, AGRA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.121/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/s Agra Products Pvt. Ltd. DCIT-Circle-2(1)(1), बनाम/ Plot No. 99, Phase-II, NSEZ, Noida, Agra Vs. Gautum Bhuddha Nagar, U.P. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.AADCA-3621-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Pankaj Gargh (Advocate) – Ld. AR " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 10-02-2025 घोषणाकीतार…