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 367,207 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

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

Easyaccess Financial Services Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Copr Ward 2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 587/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 587/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Easyaccess Financial Services Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, New No.18, Old No.40, Vs. Corporate Ward 2(1), Mussuri Subramaniam Salai, Chennai. (Oliver Road), Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Aabce 4646G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. M. Lavanya, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1060282095(1) Dated 30.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2012-13 U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 27.09.2017. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Ao For Reopening Of Assessment U/S.147 R.W.S. 148 Of The Act, As The Ao During The Original Assessment Proceedings Has Formed An Opinion After Seeking Explanation & After Examining The Present Issue Of Factoring Of Income U/S.143(3) Of The Act. Hence, Now Reopening Is Bad In Law. The Assessee Also Raised The Interconnected Issue, Which Is On Merits That The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao Beig Factoring Income In The Hands Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Ms. M. Lavanya, FCA &For Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…g but change of opinion and moreover, there is no tangible material which has come to the notice of the AO after framing of original assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd., reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) and held as under:- 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 secti…

P. Ravichandran, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(3), Chennai

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

ITA 582/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 582/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dr. P. Ravichandran, The Deputy Commissioner No.3, Second Link Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Raghava Reddy Colony, Central Circle – 1(3), Jaffarkhanpet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 083. Pan: Aahpr 0455M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 54B

…ipuram, Maduranthakam. The ld.counsel argued that there is no fresh or tangible material for reopening of assessment and this issue is squarely covered 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). 5. On the other hand, the ld.Senior DR argued that the assessee has shown the land as a part of current account and once the assessee itself treated the transaction as part of stock-in-trade, it will not come under the distinction of capital asset. He also stated that the information furnished by assessee during remand proceedings and AO in…

Star Aviation Private Limited, Mylapore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 6, Chennai, Nungambakkam

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1497/CHNY/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1497/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Star Aviation Private Limited Acit Chennai Citi Centre, 4Th Floor बनाम/ Corporate Circle-6, 10 & 11, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai. Vs. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aajcs-6206-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V. Padmanabhan & Shri R. Venkata Raman (Cas) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. D. Praveen (Jcit) -Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanabhan & Shri RFor Respondent: Dr. D. Praveen (JCIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ'वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम)। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1497/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. Star Aviation Private Limited ACIT Chennai CITI Centre, 4th floor बनाम/ Corporate Circle-6, 10 & 11, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai. Vs. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAJCS-6206-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant…

Tata Steel Limited (Successor to Tata Steel Long Products Limited), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle Rourkela, Rourkela

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 241/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2014-15 Tata Steel Ltd. ( Tata Steel Ltd. (Successor To Vs. Asst. Commis Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tata Steel Long Products Ltd. Tata Steel Long Products Ltd.), Tax-, Circle Circle- Rourkela Bileipada, Joda, Keonjhar Bileipada, Joda, Keonjhar Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaact 2803 M (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Shreya Loyalka, Ca : Ms Shreya Loyalka, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/0 05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/0 /05/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Ms Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 37

…iginal assessment proceedings and after considering the reply of the assessee on this issue, the AO has not made any addition. Considering the same issue amounts to change of opinion as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC) that section 147 would not give arbitrary power to the AO to reopen the assessment on the basis of mere change of opinion which cannot be per se reason to reopen. It was also held that there is a difference between power to review and power to reassess. The AO has no power to review, but he has power to reassess. But reassessment is to be ma…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-II, Kolkata vs. M/S. Kesoram Idustries Limited

ITA/1/2014HC Calcutta06 May 2024

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 6Th May 2024. Appearance: Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Advocate Mr. Ankan Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Advocate. … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sm. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Learned Counsel For The Respondent Assessee. 2. This Appeal Was Admitted By This Court By Order Dated 31St July 2013 On The Following Substantial Question Of Law:- “Whether On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred In Law In Setting Aside The Order Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax, 1961?”

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

…was void ab initio and has been correctly set aside by the ITA. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 and submits that proceeding under Section 147 of the Act, 1961 initiated by the Assessing Officer was based on “change of opinion” inasmuch as on conscious application of mind on facts of the case during original assessment proceeding he treated the aforesaid amount as ‘capital receipt’. Therefore, the attempt to tax the same amount on same set o…

Sangeeta Goel, Patna vs. CCIT, NFAC, Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 211/PAT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 211/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sangeeta Goel Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax/Nfac 506, Santosha Complex Vs Fraser Road Bander Bagicha Patna - 800001 [Pan: Acbpg0887A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 30/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. A. That The Initiation Of Proceeding U/S 147 R.W.S 148 Of The It Act, 1961 Based On Alleged Information Of Bogus Trade Amounting To Rs. 35,09,213/- In The Shares & Securities Of M/S Ayaan Commercial Pvt Ltd Being Bereft Of Fact & Assessee Having Not Carried On Any Such Transaction, The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The It Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law. B. That The Ld. A.O. Having Rejected The Objection Of The Assessee Although These Facts Are Brought On Record His Action In Doing So Is Bad In Law. C. That The Reopening U/S 147 Was Based On Mere Suspicion & Surmises, The Proceeding U/S 147 R.W.S. 148 Of The It Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, JCIT D/R
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…opinion. 6.1. Reliance has been placed on the following judgments:- (i) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO, Calcutta and Ors. vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC); (ii) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) (iii) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del.); 6.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the order of the lower authorities. 5 I.T.A. No. 211/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sangeeta Goel 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material placed befo…

ACIT, Cent Circle-1, Trichy vs. M/S Mangal & Mangal, Trichy

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 511/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 511/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Mangal & Mangal, Income Tax, V. 25, N.S.B. Road, Teppakulam, Central Circle -2, Trichy – 620 002. No. 44, Williams Road, [Pan: Aaifm-3378-B] Cantonment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate : Shri. Nlay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…hange of opinion cannot be allowed. In our opinion, therefore, in the present case also, it was not permissible for respondent No. 1 to issue notice under section 148. 20. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd, 320 ITR 561 that the concept of "Change of opinion" must be treated as an in-built test to check 'abuse of power by the AO and if that concept is removed, then review would take place in the garb of reopening the assessment. The Hon' ble Supreme Court held that the AO has the powers to reopen provided there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that…