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 147Section 143(3)Section 148Section 142(1)Section 151Section 143(2)Section 68Section 139
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

kelvinatorfresh tangible materialmere change of opinionfirst proviso to section 147material facts necessary for assessmentfull and true disclosurechange of opinionbeyond four yearslive linktangible materialescapement of incomereason to believe

Judgments citing CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

Nalgonda Realtors Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 656/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…rs for the assessment year 2016-17, though there is no material with the AO pertaining to the assessee for AY 2013-14. This legal principle is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) wherein it has been clearly held that the Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is ‘tangible material’ to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment and further reasons must 6 have a live link for formation of belief. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DCIT…

Nalgonda Realtors Private Limited, Secunderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 655/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…rs for the assessment year 2016-17, though there is no material with the AO pertaining to the assessee for AY 2013-14. This legal principle is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) wherein it has been clearly held that the Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is ‘tangible material’ to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment and further reasons must 6 have a live link for formation of belief. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DCIT…

Kapil Food and Structure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 654/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…rs for the assessment year 2016-17, though there is no material with the AO pertaining to the assessee for AY 2013-14. This legal principle is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) wherein it has been clearly held that the Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is ‘tangible material’ to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment and further reasons must have a live link for formation of belief. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DCIT Vs…

Kapil Property Developers Limited, Hanumakonda vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad

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

ITA 652/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…rs for the assessment year 2016-17, though there is no material with the AO pertaining to the assessee for AY 2013-14. This legal principle is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) wherein it has been clearly held that the Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is ‘tangible material’ to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment and further reasons must have a live link for formation of belief. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DCIT Vs…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Nungambakkam vs. Idfc Limited, Teynampet

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 819/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idfc Limited, 4Th Floor, Capitale Tower, No. 555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Anna Salai, Thiru Vi Ka Kudiyiruppu, Chennai 600 034. Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aaaci2663N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated Both Dated 21.09.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Ved, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…ich is at page No. 202-208 of the paper book, submitted that on similar identical facts, the Tribunal held the reopening is bad under law by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Limited [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). 11. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the reassessment order, we note that the Assessing officer proceeded to make various disallowances under sections 36(1)(viia), 36(1)(viii), 14A of the Act on sale of investment only on examination of computation of statement, which was already there on record during the course of origina…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Nungambakkam vs. Idfc Limited, Teynampet

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 818/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idfc Limited, 4Th Floor, Capitale Tower, No. 555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Anna Salai, Thiru Vi Ka Kudiyiruppu, Chennai 600 034. Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aaaci2663N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated Both Dated 21.09.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Ved, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…ich is at page No. 202-208 of the paper book, submitted that on similar identical facts, the Tribunal held the reopening is bad under law by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Limited [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). 11. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the reassessment order, we note that the Assessing officer proceeded to make various disallowances under sections 36(1)(viia), 36(1)(viii), 14A of the Act on sale of investment only on examination of computation of statement, which was already there on record during the course of origina…

Deputy Commissioner (Exemptions), Chennai, Income Tax vs. Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science, Chennai

ITA 611/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 611/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai. Hindustan Institute Of Technology & Science, 40, Gst Road, St Thomas Mount, Chennai - 600 016. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaath-6508-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By Shri R. Venkatesh, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 04.09.2024 Pronouncement आदेश / Order Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Nfac], Delhi (Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059507197(1), Dated 09.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai For The

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 3(1)

…sessment proceedings are invalid as the Assessee had filed the same details filed in original proceedings and Notice u/s.148 amounts to mere change of opinion. The Assessee relies on the ratio of the decision reported in CIT v. Kelvinator of India reported in 320 ITR 561 Board's Circular No.549, dt.31.10.1989 [182 ITR (St) 1, 29], clarifies that a mere change of opinion cannot form the basis for reopening the completed assessment. The aforesaid views are further strengthened by the following legal precedents: :- 6 -: ITA No.611/Chny/2024 a) ACIT Vs ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SC):…

ACIT Ltu 2, Chennai vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai

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

ITA 946/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.775/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011 ) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, Income Tax, Chennai 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 034. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.946/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011. ) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, 763, Anna Salai, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 002. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaci 1223J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. C. Naresh, C.A., Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, IRS, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…osures in annual accounts and in respect of amortization of investments based on the claim in the return of income. In support of above submissions, the ld.AR referred the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561 SC) and the order of co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in Assessee’s own case in ITA No.782/Chny/2001 and ITA No.1991/Chny/2002 dated 15.06.2022 titled as Indian Overseas Bank Vs JCIT. 7. Per contra, the ld. CIT- DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and contended that in assessment proceedings claims were allowed to the assessee dehors…

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-2, Chennai

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

ITA 775/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.775/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011 ) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, Income Tax, Chennai 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 034. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.946/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011. ) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, 763, Anna Salai, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 002. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaci 1223J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. C. Naresh, C.A., Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, IRS, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…osures in annual accounts and in respect of amortization of investments based on the claim in the return of income. In support of above submissions, the ld.AR referred the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561 SC) and the order of co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in Assessee’s own case in ITA No.782/Chny/2001 and ITA No.1991/Chny/2002 dated 15.06.2022 titled as Indian Overseas Bank Vs JCIT. 7. Per contra, the ld. CIT- DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and contended that in assessment proceedings claims were allowed to the assessee dehors…

The Prudential Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited, Secunderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 101/HYD/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…e on the order of ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs. NSL Properties Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.22/Hyd/2020 & C.O. No.14/Hyd/2020 dated 20.12.2022) in which ITAT after considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Limited (2010) 320 ITR 561 at para no.15 of the order held as under : “ 15. There is no dispute in this case that all the material papers which the learned Assessing Officer made a basis to reopen the concluded assessment were available with the learned Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment itself. From the record is also evident that the learned Assessing…

Preet International Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-20(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3600/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarpreet International Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 240, Ff, Dda Office Complex Circle-20(1), Cycle Market, Jhandewalan New Delhi Extn, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaco9321J Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Adv Ms. Supriya Mehta, Ca Revenue By: Shri Vivek Vardha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardha, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e reasonable In other words, it must be based on reasons which are relevant and material. The existence of tangible and relevant material is a precondition for assuming jurisdiction, as has been held in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) and ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC). Hence, in this case the proceedings have been initiated on the basis of no material much less Preet International Pvt. Ltd any tangible and, relevant material and as such reasons record do not constitute valid reason to believe for initiating proceedings u/s 14…

Cheyur Ramakrishnan, Chennai vs. ITO, Business Ward - 2(3), Chennai

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

ITA 334/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2024. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-2008) Cheyur Ramakrishnan Rajkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.7/4, Meenakshi P.S Business Ward Ii(3) Sivasamy Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Accpr 4434P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Subramanian, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. R. Subramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(14)Section 54B

…posal to reopen the assessment after a gap of more than 4 years without any fresh and tangible material would tantamount to only "Review" which is not permissible in law. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court Of India in the case of C.I.T vs KELVINATOR OF INDIA (2010 320 ITR 561) has clearly held that the power to reopen must be supported by the availability of tangible fresh materials as also a live link with the formation of a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 16. The SC, in the above Case has further hold that availability of tangible materials alone is not sufficient and there must always b…

Padam Kumar Goyal, Tonk vs. ITO Ward-Tonk, Income Tax Department, Tonk

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

ITA 581/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria (C.A)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…llen mills 236 ITR 34 (SC), Phool Chand Bjaranglal 203 ITR 456 (SC), KR 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…

Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 637/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

…dh Transformers (P.) Ltd. 51 Taxmann.com 369 (SC) 4. Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs. Income Tax Officer, Companies District, I and Ors. [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC). 5. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Limited (18.01.2010 - SC) [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC)] 6. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-II vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (19.04.2002 - DELHC) reported in [2002] 256 ITR l(Delhi) 7. Income Tax Officer Ward No. 16(2) vs. Tech Span India Private Ltd. and Ors. (24.04.2018 - SC) : [2018] 404 ITR 10 (SC), 8. Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax [[2017] 398 ITR 198 (Delhi)…

Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. P.C.I.T., Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

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

ITA 1067/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

…dh Transformers (P.) Ltd. 51 Taxmann.com 369 (SC) 4. Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs. Income Tax Officer, Companies District, I and Ors. [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC). 5. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Limited (18.01.2010 - SC) [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC)] 6. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-II vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (19.04.2002 - DELHC) reported in [2002] 256 ITR l(Delhi) 7. Income Tax Officer Ward No. 16(2) vs. Tech Span India Private Ltd. and Ors. (24.04.2018 - SC) : [2018] 404 ITR 10 (SC), 8. Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax [[2017] 398 ITR 198 (Delhi)…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Vista Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1340/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

….1917 of 2019, dt. 21.08.2019) b) State Bank of India v. ACIT, 96 taxmann.com 77 c) GRI Towers India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, 160 taxmann.com 215 24. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC), he submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that the Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is ‘tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment; reasons must have a live link with formation of belief.’ 25. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bo…

Arvindkumar Amulkh Tanna, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2 (3), Ahmeadabad

ITA 577/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…s likely to hold, even under the new provisions, as the rationale behind requiring tangible material for reopening an assessment remains a cornerstone of the reassessment process. Hon’ble The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 emphasized that the AO must have tangible material to justify the reopening of assessments. This principle continues to be relevant under the amended Sections 147 and 148 of the Act. The judicial principles laid down in the Saumya Construction case regarding the necessity of incriminating material for reassessment of IT(ss)A Nos.2/Ahd/2021 to 7/A…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Nagpur vs. Vinodkumar Rajendralal Kochhar, Kamptee

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

ITA 386/NAG/2023[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jul 2024

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44A

…ve a live link with the formation of the belief. This is supported by Circular No. 549 dated 31.10.1989 which clarified that the words "reason to believe" did not mean a change of opinion. [In favour of assessee]-[CIT, Delhi v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561: 187 Taxman 312 (SC)] 7. At the time of hearing, there was no representative from the side of the assessee. However, with the assistance from the side of the departmental representative, we have carefully and meticulously gone through the facts of the case. The learned Sr.DR vehemently argued that the order of the Assessing Officer be restored as…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-6(1)(1) Bangalore, Koramangala, Bengaluru vs. Shri Bommai Sommappa Basavaraj, Bangalore

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed, as not pressed

ITA 922/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 250(4)

…in law. Hence, the reasons recorded by the learned assessing officer are invalid. (iii) There is no tangible material for invoking provisions of section 147 of the Act and therefore the decision of Hon’ble supreme court in CIT(A) Vs. Kelvinator India Limited 320 ITR 561 is applicable and hence, the assessment u/s 147 is bad in law. It is submitted that the so called belief has been formed on the basis of a report received from DDIT (Inv), Unit – 1 (3), Bangalore. The contents of such report have not been stated in the recorded reasons. The learned assessing officer has not conducted even a preliminary enquiry to…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-6(1)(1) Bangalore, Koramangala, Bengaluru vs. Shri Bommai Sommappa Basavaraj, Bangalore

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed, as not pressed

ITA 914/BANG/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 250(4)

…in law. Hence, the reasons recorded by the learned assessing officer are invalid. (iii) There is no tangible material for invoking provisions of section 147 of the Act and therefore the decision of Hon’ble supreme court in CIT(A) Vs. Kelvinator India Limited 320 ITR 561 is applicable and hence, the assessment u/s 147 is bad in law. It is submitted that the so called belief has been formed on the basis of a report received from DDIT (Inv), Unit – 1 (3), Bangalore. The contents of such report have not been stated in the recorded reasons. The learned assessing officer has not conducted even a preliminary enquiry to…