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.

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 561)

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

…3(3), the case was reopened again for verification of the same issue which is tantamount to review / change of opinion of AO’s order. The appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd, reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) had referred the Departmental Circular no. 549 dated 31/10/1989 and decided that reopening cannot be made merely for change of opinion: "The concept of "change of opinion" on the part of the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment does not stand obliterated after the substitution of section 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961, by the Direct Ta…

Kailash Chand, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 565/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dinesh Badgujar, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234A

…recorded and not an objective one which is the requirement u/s 147. Hence, the AO proceeded on mere reasons to suspicion as against reasons to believe. 11 Kailash Chand vs. ITO 1.5 Reliance is placed on CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 187 Taxman 312/320 ITR 561 (SC) where Hon’ble Apex court 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 reopen assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also ke…

Navbharat Potteries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above

ITA 2700/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 22Section 23(1)(c)Section 250

…wherein the judicial authorities have insisted upon the existence of valid reasons to reopen the assessment proceedings. Further, the appellant has also quoted the following case laws in support of its contention: (1) CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., [2010] 187 Taxmann 312 (SC) (0) Mrs. Parveen Bharucha Vs. DCIT, Circle 2, Pune [2012] 28 Taxmann.com 274 (Bom.) (iii) CIT Vs. India Cements Ltd., [2020] 118 taxmann.com 99 (Madras) (iv) State Bank of India Vs. ACIT [2020] 119 taxmann.com 322 (Bombay) 6.1.5 The submission and the case laws relied upon by the appellant in this regard are perused. It is noticed that t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bareilly vs. Wave Distilleries and Breweries Limited, Bareilly

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 153/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Vibhu Jain and Sumit Lalchandani, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt. Richa Rastogi, CIT (DR)

Section 115JSection 148

…s knowledge even at the time of assessment. In this regard, the Ld. A.R. placed ITA Nos.153 to 157/LKW/2023 C.O. Nos.23, 24, 21,22 and 25/LKW/2023 Page 29 of 61 reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561(SC). 11.10 The Ld. A.R. submitted that in the instant case, proceedings for reopening had been initiated with respect to alleged profit generated on account of sale made on behalf of UBL. The disclosure in this behalf had been categorically made by the assessee in its Notes to Accounts attached to the Balance Sheet which were before the AO durin…

DCIT CC 4 2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Red Chillies Entertainments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5831/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 40

…nd four years without any tangible material is nothing but change of opinion, which is not permissible. Reliance in this regard was placed by him on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 187 Taxman 312/320 ITR 561. 6. On the other hand Ld. DR submitted that AO has reasonable belief that the assessee had claimed entire amount reimbursed as expenses in its books but had not offered any incentive received from UK Government which should be fairly @25% of the cost in this line of producer. This aspect was not examined specifically by the AO in the original ass…

Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

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

ITA 2017/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora, H G Sharma

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1178/PUN/2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed Flat No.601, A-8, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune 411029 PAN: AALPC4991M (Appellant) Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Pune (Respondent) ITA No.2017/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed Flat No.601, A-8, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune - 411029 PAN: AALPC4991M (Appellant) Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Pune (Respondent) Assess…

Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

ITA 1178/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1178/PUN/2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed Flat No.601, A-8, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune 411029 PAN: AALPC4991M (Appellant) Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Pune (Respondent) ITA No.2017/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed Flat No.601, A-8, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune - 411029 PAN: AALPC4991M (Appellant) Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Pune (Respondent) Assess…

Sunny Tarunkumar Doshi, Jetpur vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 288/AHD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 56(1)(vii)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

…ear: 2014-15 Shri Sunny Tarunkumar Doshi vs. ITO Page 4 of 8 assessment on the same issue amounts to a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible under the law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) has held that once an assessment has been completed under Section 143(3), the same cannot be reopened within four years unless there is tangible material to establish escapement of income. The Court categorically ruled that reopening based on a mere change of opinion is not valid. As the present case falls within four years of the original a…

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)

…he AO is to relook at the very same facts available at the time of original assessment proceedings. This is against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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…

Ratna Infrastructure Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 132/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ratna Infrastructure Projects Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward –3(3), Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr5836P. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

…ncome for reopening of the assessment and the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act are illegal and void ab initio. 24 22. The assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Limited [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in light of provisions of section 147 of the Act, held as under. “Prior to the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, reopening could be done under two conditions, viz., if (a) the ITO had reason to believe that, by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return under section 139 for…

Samtel India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 22(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7101/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalasst. Cit, Samtel India Limited, Circle-22(1), 501, Copia Corporate Vs. New Delhi. Suites, District Centre Jasola, New Delhi-110025 Pan-Aaacs0390N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri D.C. Garg, Ca Department By Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/02/2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Is Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, New Delhi (“The Cit(A)” For Short) In Appeal No.32/13-14 Dated 27/01/2015 For Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi, Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case In Upholding Action Of The Assessing Officer In Reopening The Assessment Under Samtel India Ltd. Vs. Acit

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asst. CIT, Samtel India Limited, Circle-22(1), 501, Copia Corporate Vs. New Delhi. Suites, District Centre Jasola, New Delhi-110025 PAN-AAACS0390N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri D.C. Garg, CA Department by Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 04/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 12/02/2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This is appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, New Delhi (“the CIT…

DCIT(Central)-1, Raipur vs. Kalmesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 138/RPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

…ated 24.12.2018 cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down on the said count itself. The Ld. AR in support of his aforesaid contention had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Limited reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC). Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the original assessment in the case of the assessee was framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 31.03.2016, Page 26-33 of APB. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O while framing the assessment had, inter alia, held that the assessee had not made genui…

DCIT(Central)-1, Raipur vs. Kalmesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 136/RPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

…ated 24.12.2018 cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down on the said count itself. The Ld. AR in support of his aforesaid contention had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Limited reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC). Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the original assessment in the case of the assessee was framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 31.03.2016, Page 26-33 of APB. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O while framing the assessment had, inter alia, held that the assessee had not made genui…

DCIT(Central)-1, Raipur vs. Kalmesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 135/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

…ated 24.12.2018 cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down on the said count itself. The Ld. AR in support of his aforesaid contention had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Limited reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC). Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the original assessment in the case of the assessee was framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 31.03.2016, Page 26-33 of APB. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O while framing the assessment had, inter alia, held that the assessee had not made genui…

Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 124/RPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

…ated 24.12.2018 cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down on the said count itself. The Ld. AR in support of his aforesaid contention had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Limited reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC). Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the original assessment in the case of the assessee was framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 31.03.2016, Page 26-33 of APB. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O while framing the assessment had, inter alia, held that the assessee had not made genui…

Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 123/RPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

…ated 24.12.2018 cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down on the said count itself. The Ld. AR in support of his aforesaid contention had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Limited reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC). Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the original assessment in the case of the assessee was framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 31.03.2016, Page 26-33 of APB. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O while framing the assessment had, inter alia, held that the assessee had not made genui…

Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 122/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

…ated 24.12.2018 cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down on the said count itself. The Ld. AR in support of his aforesaid contention had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Limited reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC). Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the original assessment in the case of the assessee was framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 31.03.2016, Page 26-33 of APB. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O while framing the assessment had, inter alia, held that the assessee had not made genui…

Dy. C.I.T. Cir-.2, Nagpur vs. Shri Govinddas Goverdhan Daga, Nagpur

ITA 517/NAG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.517/Nag./2016 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Nagpur Appellant v/s Shri Govinddas Govardhan Daga Respondent 5, Temple Road, Civil Lines Nagpur 440 001 PAN – AAWPD9591R C.O. no.15/Nag./2017 (Arising out of ITA no.517/Nag./2016) (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Shri Govinddas Govardhan Daga Cross Objector 5, Temple Road, Civil Lines (Original Respondent) Nagpur 440 001 PAN – AAWPD9591R v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Respondent Circle-2,…

Tijaria Polypipes Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cirlce 4, Jaipur

ITA 616/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…len mills 236 ITR 34 (SC), Phool Chand Bjaranglal 203 ITR 456 (SC), K R Sadayappan 63 ITR 219 (SC). In case of Multi Screen Media (P) Ltd. 324 ITR 54 (Bom) the Bombay High Court after considering the decision in case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) has observed as under: "where the AO purports to exercise power under s.147 within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the condition precedent to the exercise of the power is the existence of a reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The expression 'reason to believe' must…

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Macmillan Education India Private Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 2036/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 2036/Chny/2024 & Co No.: 66/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Macmillan Education India Corporate Ward -4(1), V. Private Limited, Chennai – 600 034. No.21, Patullos Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan:Aafcm-5564-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Assessee By : Mr. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit Department By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 147

…ow: 11.The phrase reason to believe in section 147 relates to such other new or tangible material as may have come to the knowledge of the assessing officer pursuant to the original proceedings for assessment. The Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India (320 ITR 561) states thus in the context of the belief that should form the basis for a re- assessment; ‘We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review, he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-conditions and if…

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

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

Kailash Chand, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward, Behror

Navbharat Potteries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bareilly vs. Wave Distilleries and Breweries Limited, Bareilly

DCIT CC 4 2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Red Chillies Entertainments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

Sunny Tarunkumar Doshi, Jetpur vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

Ratna Infrastructure Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Hyderabad

Samtel India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 22(1), New Delhi

DCIT(Central)-1, Raipur vs. Kalmesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur

DCIT(Central)-1, Raipur vs. Kalmesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur

DCIT(Central)-1, Raipur vs. Kalmesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur

Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

Dy. C.I.T. Cir-.2, Nagpur vs. Shri Govinddas Goverdhan Daga, Nagpur

Tijaria Polypipes Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cirlce 4, Jaipur

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Macmillan Education India Private Limited, Chennai