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 367,288 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.

M/S Godawari Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1445/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69C

…are not valid since formation of the belief of escapement of income should have live link with the tangible material with the AO. In this respect, we draw our force from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) wherein it is stated that expression “reason to believe” cannot comprehend mere change of opinion which would only amount to an impermissible review. An assessment cannot be reopened merely to verify the genuineness of expenses/claims. 8.2. On the contention of the assessee about not giving an opportunity to cross examine the third party i.…

Anavya Investments Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-2(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4828/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Anavya Investments Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. Sanjay & Sanjay, A-1-A, 14B, Ward-2(4), Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aahc4820A Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Garg, Ca Shri Akarsh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/04/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…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 any tangible and, relevant material and as such reasons record do not constitute valid reason to believe for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. It is a case of…

ACIT Circle-65(1), New Delhi vs. Sanjay Pratap Singh, New Delhi

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

ITA 4492/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(8)Section 271(1)(c)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4491 & 4492/Del/2019 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ACIT, Vs. Sanjay Pratap Singh, Circle-65(1), D-2/359, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi Vinay Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAOPS3073R Assessee by : Shri R. K. Singhal, CA Revenue by: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 01/04/2024 Date of pronouncement 04/04/2024 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. These are the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos.4491/Del/2019 and 4492/Del/2019 for 2009-10,…

ACIT Circle-65(1), New Delhi vs. Sanjay Pratap Singh, New Delhi

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

ITA 4491/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(8)Section 271(1)(c)

Hem Lata Jhunjhunwala, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata.

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in this respect for AY 2011-12 are allowed

ITA 751/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.750 & 751/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Hem Lata Jhunjhunwala Assistant Commissioner of Vs. 9, Pretoria Street, Kolkata-700071 Income Tax, Circle-11(2), (PAN: ACIPJ0434H) Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 11.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 01.04.2024 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Both these appeals filed…

Hem Lata Jhunjhunwala, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata.

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in this respect for AY 2011-12 are allowed

ITA 750/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Thota Venkateswara Rao, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 221/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.221/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Thota Venkateswara Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.67-21-12/4 Ward-1 Lb Nagar Ss Kakinada Kakinada [Pan : Abipt6770F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 187(3)Section 69A

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.221/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Thota Venkateswara Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.67-21-12/4 Ward-1 LB Nagar SS Kakinada Kakinada [PAN : ABIPT6770F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR प्रत्यधथी की ओ…

M/S. Grt Jewellers India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, . Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 113/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…Dispute Resolution Panel ('Learned DRP') erred in upholding the action of Learned AO in reopening the assessment merely based on change of opinion which is not permissible in law as laid down by the Apex Court in case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561. 2.3. For that the Learned DRP/AO erred in reopening the assessment merely on the basis of an audit objection and concluded the assessment without independent application of mind. 2.4. For that the Learned AO, in the reasons recorded, failed to establish that there is any failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all mater…

Pooja Developers, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-29(2)(5), (Current Juridiction: Ward-41(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3690/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3690/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Pooja Developers बिधम/ Ito-29(2)(5) Shop No. 4 (Damini Wines) [Current Jurisdiction Vs. Shiv Shakti Building, Jn Ward 41(1)(3), Mumbai] Road, Near Apna Bazar, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400080. Kurla Complex, Mumbai- 400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaifp5595M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Snehal Shah Revenue By: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…Y. 2009-10 Pooja Developers 147 of the Act, as it tantamount to change of opinion resulting in review of the decision taken by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v/s Kalvinator of India Ltd., [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) after taking note of the amendment brought to section 147 of the Act w.e.f. 1st April 1989 has held that though, post amendment the power to re- opening is much wider, however, a schematic interpretation to the words “reason to belief’ has to be given, otherwise, the Assessing Officer would exercise arbitrary power by re-opening the assessme…

M/S Ramani Timber Corporation, Trichy vs. ACIT-Circle-3(1), Trichy

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1476/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1476/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Ramani Timber Corporation Acit बनाम 3/132A. Tanjore Road, Opp.Udc Circle-3(1) / Vs. Kattur, Trichy-620 019. Trichy. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaefr-9407-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mrs. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 13-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-03-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] On 17-10-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act On 31-12-2018. This Is Second Round Of Litigation. Earlier, The Tribunal Vide Its Order In Ita No.125/Chny/2020 Dated 09-11-2021 Had Set Aside The Appeal To Ld. Cit(A) For Fresh Consideration. Pursuant To The Same, Impugned Order

For Appellant: Mrs. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, उपा ! एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ&वाल ,लेखा सद) के सम!। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1476/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/s. Ramani Timber Corporation ACIT बनाम 3/132A. Tanjore Road, Opp.UDC Circle-3(1) / Vs. Kattur, Trichy-620 019. Trichy. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAEFR-9407-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Mrs. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld. AR " थ"की…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4081/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: PendingITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

…date: a) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.: 37 ITR 1 (SC) b) Metal Box (P) Limited (1969): 73 ITR 53 (SC) c) United Commercial Bank v. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC) d) Bharat Earth Movers: 245 ITR 428 (SC) e) Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1 confirmed by SC in 320 ITR 561 f) CIT v Vinitec Corpn. (P) Ltd.: 278 ITR 337 (Delhi) g) National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. JCIT : 98 ITD 278 (Hyd. ITAT) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. 312 ITR 254 has held that:- g) “21. In conclusion, we may state that in order to find out if an expenditure is deductible the fol…

DCIT 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1809/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyaldcit Circle – 3(3)(1), R. No. 609, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. Small Industries Development Bank Of India Sme Development Centre, C-11, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 Pan – Aabcs3480N ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kabra, Ld. AR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36(1)

…on. It is now a well decided judicial pronouncement that no reopening is possible on the basis of change of opinion. Copies of following decisions were provided during the course of hearing: • Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC) • Court of Bombay in case of HDFC Bank Ltd Vs ACIT (WP 1787 of 2014). In addition to the above, reliance is also placed on the following cases laws: • HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT In The Case Of Saurabh Natvarlal Soparkar Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 4(2) [2021] 131 Taxmann.Com 63 • *2021+ 131 Taxmann.Com 166 (Bombay) HIGH COURT…

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 209/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

…essor and therefore the reopening could be said to be based on change of opinion which cannot be the reason for reopening of an validly completed assessment u/s 143(3) as held by various courts including the Apex Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), followed by the decision of the jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Schwing Stetter India (P) Ltd. in TCA No. 217 of 2015 dated 02.06.2015 among others. ITA Nos.207 to 209/Chny/2020 Accordingly, the CIT(A) quashed the reopening. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. The ld.CIT-DR mainly relied on the reason…

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 208/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 207/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

Ntpc Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Special Range-06, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1811/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakroborty, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…/s 143(3) of the Act and, therefore, assuming jurisdiction by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act to reassess the completed assessment is nothing but change of opinion which has not been accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 561 wherein the Hon'ble court has held as under: “When a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of section 143 (3) of the Act, a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind. An order which has been passed purportedly without application of mind would itself confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Offic…

Ntpc Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Special Range-06, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1810/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakroborty, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

Lovely Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

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

ITA 770/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a

Section 127Section 127(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 770/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 Lovely Promoters Private ACIT, Limited Central Circle, Vs. 47A 47A, 3rd Floor Zakaria Ajmer. Street, Kolkata-700073. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCL1338C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.) jktLo…

Mandar Kulkurni, HUF, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Vadodara

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

ITA 631/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54

…. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the reopening on the very same issue is not justified as Section 147 cannot be invoked in case of change of opinion. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited, 320 ITR 561 (SC). The Ld AR also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Arun Munshaw HUF vs. ITO, 425 ITR 79(Guj.). The Ld. AR further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Madrs High Court in case of CIT vs. N. Kannaiyiram, 240 ITR 892. Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 4 of 5 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing officer has righ…

M/S. Mangalam Publications, Kottayam vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam

C.A. No.-008580-008582 - 2011Supreme Court23 Jan 2024

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…2024 INSC 53 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8580-8582 OF 2011 M/S MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8599-8603 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8604 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8593-8598 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8583-8587 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8588-8592 OF 2011 J U D G M E N T UJJAL BHUYAN, J. The perennial question in income tax jurisprudence, whether reopening of a concluded ass…