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.

DCIT Ltu 1, Chennai vs. M/S Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

ITA 494/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

For Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa

Section 143(3)Section 148

…the mischief of first proviso to section 147. 2.5 In support of its contentions, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed his reliance upon catena of judicial pronouncements including the one pronounced by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kelvinator of India 328 ITR 561 (SC). The Ld. Counsel had contended that reassessment of any proceedings on the basis of change of opinion is not permissible in law. It has been submitted that as per extant statutory provisions covering the subject, reassessment u/s 148 is only permissible if either some new facts have come to the notice of the department post Page - 7 - of 70…

DCIT Ltu 1, Chennai vs. M/S Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 493/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order The Following Appeals Have Been Raised By The Appellant Assessee & Appellant Revenue Contesting Assessment / Appellate Orders For Ays 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. As The Grounds Of Appeal In Respective Appeals Of Assessee & Revenue Are Largely Common, All The Appeals Are Adjudicated Through This Common Orders. S. No. A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Appeal Nos. B

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa

Section 143(3)Section 148

…the mischief of first proviso to section 147. 2.5 In support of its contentions, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed his reliance upon catena of judicial pronouncements including the one pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kelvinator of India 328 ITR 561 (SC). The Ld. Counsel had contended that reassessment of any proceedings on the basis of change of opinion is not permissible in law. It has been submitted that as per extant statutory provisions covering the subject, reassessment u/s 148 is only permissible if either some new facts have come to the notice of the department post Page - 7 - of 70…

DCIT Ltu 1, Chennai vs. M/S Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 492/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 15.10.2024 08.01.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order The Following Appeals Have Been Raised By The Appellant Assessee & Appellant Revenue Contesting Assessment / Appellate Orders For Ays 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. As The Grounds Of Appeal In Respective Appeals Of Assessee & Revenue Are Largely Common, All The Appeals Are Adjudicated Through This Common Orders. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa

Section 143(3)Section 148

…the mischief of first proviso to section 147. 2.5 In support of its contentions, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed his reliance upon catena of judicial pronouncements including the one pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kelvinator of India 328 ITR 561 (SC). The Ld. Counsel had contended that reassessment of any proceedings on the basis of change of opinion is not permissible in law. It has been submitted that as per extant statutory provisions covering the subject, reassessment u/s 148 is only permissible if either some new facts have come to the notice of the department post Page - 7 - of 70…

DCIT Ltu 1, Chennai vs. M/S Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 491/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 15.10.2024 08.01.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order The Following Appeals Have Been Raised By The Appellant Assessee & Appellant Revenue Contesting Assessment / Appellate Orders For Ays 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. As The Grounds Of Appeal In Respective Appeals Of Assessee & Revenue Are Largely Common, All The Appeals Are Adjudicated Through This Common Orders. S. No. A Appeal Nos. B Ays C Appellate D Cit(A) Order Details E Revenue F 1

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa

Section 143(3)Section 148

…the mischief of first proviso to section 147. 2.5 In support of its contentions, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed his reliance upon catena of judicial pronouncements including the one pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kelvinator of India 328 ITR 561 (SC). The Ld. Counsel had contended that reassessment of any proceedings on the basis of change of opinion is not permissible in law. It has been submitted that as per extant statutory provisions covering the subject, reassessment u/s 148 is only permissible if either some new facts have come to the notice of the department post Page - 7 - of 70…

DCIT It 3 3 2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Pramarica Aspf II Cyprus Holding Ltd, Ctprus

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3041/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai/ Shri YogeshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 115A(1)(a)Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 148

…isclose fully and truly all material facts necessary. In the given case, the assessment is sought to be reopened after a period of four years and the proviso to section 147 is applicable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) has laid down that the AO has no power to review but only to reassess based on any new material that has come to his possession. We also notice that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ESS Advertising (Mauritius) S.N.C.Et Compagnie (supra) has considered a similar issue and held that vi. Sixthly, (re) assessment proceedings can only…

DCIT It 332 Mumbai, Income Tax vs. Pramarica Aspf II Cyprus Holding Ltd, Cyprus

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3040/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai/ Shri YogeshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 115A(1)(a)Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 148

Ramad Ventures Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 408/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.408/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Ramad Ventures Private Ltd. Dcit बनाम Old No.23, New No.18, Corporate Circle-5(1) Chellammal Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecr-7531-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Raghupathy (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी एस. एस. िव"ने" रिव, "ाियक सद! एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ&वाल ,लेखा सद! के सम(। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.408/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/s. Ramad Ventures Private Ltd. DCIT बनाम Old No.23, New No.18, Corporate Circle-5(1) Chellammal Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAECR-7531-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant by…

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

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

…postulate conferment of power upon the assessing officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon his mere change of opinion.” The aforesaid decision of the Delhi High Court has Court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd: 320 ITR 561(SC). Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Usha International Limited: 348 ITR 485 wherein the Court held that re-assessinent DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd. proceedings will be invalid in case an issue or query is raised but thereafter the assessing officer does not make any addition…

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

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

Pradip Kumar Jajodia, HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-44(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 192/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.190 To 192/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…IT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindusthan Lever Ltd. Vs. R. B. Wadkar, Asst. CIT reported in 268 ITR 332. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 560 has held that some tangible material must come to the AO for formation of belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. However, as observed in above, there was no tangible material available to the AO regarding escapement of income of the assessee. In this case, the AO has reopened the assessment only on assumptions and presumpt…

Pradip Kumar Jajodia, HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-44(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 191/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.190 To 192/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Pradip Kumar Jajodia (HUF), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-44(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 190/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.190 To 192/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

M/S Deora Electric Works, Allahabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Allahabad

In the result, both appeals i

ITA 99/ALLD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…arty and there was no independent application of mind by the ld. AO, hence the entire proceeding under section 148 of the Act was voidable and liable to be annulled. For this proposition, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. CIT vs. Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii. Shri Ram Builders vs. ACIT, OSD 2015 377 ITR 631 (Gujarat). iii. N.K. Roadways Private Limited vs. ITO, OSD 2014 362 ITR 522 (Gujarat). iv. P.C. Patel and Co. vs. DCIT (2015) 379 ITR 151 (Gujarat). v. PCIT vs. G & G Pharma Ltd, 2016 384 ITR 147 (Delhi). Accordingly, he prayed that on the basis of the aforesaid, the assessment framed agai…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Allahabad vs. M/S Deora Electric Works, Allahabad

In the result, both appeals i

ITA 101/ALLD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1333/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area So Bidadi Acit Vs. Ramanagar Ltu, Circle-1 Bengaluru 562 109 Banalore Pan No : Aaact5415B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Padam Chand Kincha, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Kumutha D., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Kumutha D., D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 250

…ITA No.1333/Bang/2024 M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area SO Bidadi ACIT Vs. Ramanagar LTU, Circle-1 Bengaluru 562 109 Banalore PAN NO : AAACT5415B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Padam Chand Kincha, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. Kumutha D., D.R. Date of Hearing : 24.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: T…

Dayal Cotspin Limited, Akola vs. ACIT, Akola Circle, Akola

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/NAG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 68

…das reported at 103 ITR 437(SC). (P- 21 to 31) (30( [Vol. – II] D) Reasons recorded are mere change of opinion. No new tangible material has comes on record. Notice issued u/s 148 is not in accordance with law. Reliance on Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported at 320 ITR 561(SC). (P- 1 to 5) (2) [Vol. – II] E) Reasons recorded indicate that notice u/s 148 has been issued on the basis of mere receipt of information received in respect to search at the premises of Shri Shirish Shah through Intra Departmental Authorities. Reasons recorded does not indicate that A.O. has made any independent enquiry before concluding tha…

Golden Vats Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1534/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1534/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri N.S. Phanidharan, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 37

…by the first proviso to section 147 of the Act. The Ld. AR has also argued that this is a case of merely change of opinion and reopening is not sustainable in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) and the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ITO v. Shivsu Canadian Clear Waters Ltd. in W.A No.2460 of 2021 (Mad.). The Ld. A.R has also submitted that the A.O has not issued notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act and therefore, the assessment is bad in law. 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand,…

Sunitha, Coimbatore vs. PCIT -1, Coim, Batore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2013/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, IRS, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 69

…s in a proper and bonafide manner. This view is confirmed by the full bench decision of the Delhi high court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd (256 ITR 1) (Delhi FB), was upheld by the Supreme court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kelvinator Of India Ltd ( 320 ITR 561)(SC). 16. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Marico Ltd., vs. ACIT in writ petition No.1917 of 2019 dated 21.08.2019, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has clearly pointed out once a query has been raised by the AO during the assessment proceedings and the assessee has responded to that query, it would necessarily follow that the AO ha…

Ramanathan Adaikalavan, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu vs. The Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 557/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.557/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2014-15 Ramanathan Adaikalavan, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.80, Ansari Street, Ram Nagar, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore-641009. Coimbatore [Pan: Aanpa6846P] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri P.M.Kathir, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 55A

…rm capital gains arisen, was provided to the Ld. AO and that therefore there cannot be any case for reopening u/s 148. In support of its contentions, the Ld. Counsel placed reliance, inter- alia, upon following judgements:- CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Limited 328 ITR 561 (SC) :- 7 -: DSC Limited Vs DD IT(E) 365 ITR 160 (Bombay) Global Signal Cables India Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT 368 ITR 609 (Delhi) CIT Vs CWC Corporation 371 ITR 81 (Delhi) HCL Technologies Limited Vs DCIT 397 ITR 469 (Delhi) Oracle India (P) Limited Vs ACIT 397 ITR 480(Delhi) Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit Vs DCIT 416 ITR 89 (Bombay) Anand Developers Vs ACIT…

Bhargavi Marketers, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward 6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 732/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2016-17 Bhargavi Marketers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aapfb3209D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Venkata Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri V. Venkata Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr.A.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 270ASection 40Section 40a

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Bhargavi Marketers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN : AAPFB3209D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri V. Venkata Rao, C.A. Revenue by: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr.A.R. Date of hearing: 04.12.2024 Date of pronouncement: 05.12.2024 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This appeal is filed by the assessee feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Inc…