CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

Roxaane Research P.Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle-5(4), Chennai

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2528/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Roxaane Research Pvt. Ltd., V. The Asst. Commissioner- Unit 9, Stpi Building, Of Income Tax, 5 Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Corporate Circle-5(4), Taramani, Chennai-600 113. Chennai.

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, माननीय "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथा, माननीय लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2528/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s.Roxaane Research Pvt. Ltd., v. The Asst. Commissioner- Unit 9, STPI Building, of Income Tax, 5 Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Corporate Circle-5(4), Taramani, Chennai-600 113. Chennai. [PAN: AADCR 7059 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by…

DCIT, Corporate Cirlce - 3 (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Venture Lighting India Ltd., Chennai

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.704/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Venture Lighting India Ltd., Income Tax, Plot No. A-30, D-5, Phase Ii, Corporate Circle – 3(2), Zone-B, Mepz, Tambaram, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 045. [Pan: Aaaca9284H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai, Dated 09.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 78 Days In Filing The Appeal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Hence, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For 2

…asis of materials already available on record, the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment and therefore, it is change of opinion, which is not permissible in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 561. By considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that by verifying the records which are already available with the Department during the course of scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer has reopened the 4 I.T.A. No.704/Chny/20 assessment, is contrary to the above judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and accordi…

M/S Kamuthi Agricultural Products Co Operative Marketing Society Limited, Ramnad vs. ITO Ward 1 (1), Ramanathapuram

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.414/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 V. M/S.Kamuthi Agricultural Producers The Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd., Ward-1 (1), 5/206, Thiruchuli Road, Kamuthi, Ramanathapuram. Ramanathapuram District-623 603. [Pan: Aaaaa 0334 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…d Nos.1- 4 of the assessee’s appeal is validity of re-opening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Delhi v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., reported in [2010] 228 CTR 488 submitted that the assessment cannot be re-opened on the ground of ‘change of opinion’, where the AO has considered the issue in the original assessment proceedings and has allowed the claim, then on very same issue the assessment cannot be re- opened. He further submitted that the issue of deduction u/s.80P(2) of the Act, has been considered in…

DCIT, Chennai vs. B.V.Reddy Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Chennai

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1914/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, New No. 21/Old No. 10A, First Floor, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aaccn2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 On 13.10.2010 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.15,50,25,060/-. The Assessing Officer Has Completed The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated

…n and no new tangible material came to the notice of the Assessing Officer to come to a different conclusion and thus, the change of opinion is not permissible in law as the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC) applies. 6.2 In similar facts and circumstances, in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2008-09, the ld. CIT(A) quashed the reassessment order and vide order in I.T.A. No.3293/Chny/2016 dated 29.07.2022, by considering the facts and circumstances and relying upon various case law, the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal has decided t…

Parthiban, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-7(2), Chennai

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 562/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Parthiban, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 83-A, Door No. 9, Thiruvallur Non Corporate Ward 7(2), Street, Jagadhambigai Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 050. [Pan:Biipp0005R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Sitaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai, Dated 17.01.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Has Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 On 14.07.2014 Returning Nil Income & Agricultural Income Of ₹.43,00,530/-. The Case Was Selected Through Cass & The Assessment Was Completed Under 2

…der section 147 of the Act is clearly amounts to change of opinion, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. This issue is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator India Limited 320 ITR 561 (SC). Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and quash the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 26.07.2019. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 6 I.T.A. No.562/Chny/20 7. In the result, the appeal filed by t…

ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Cavinkare Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

Appeal stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…four years, the issuance of notice u/s. 148 for reopening the already completed assessment is ab initio void. In order to fortify this ground, the appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561. It is a fact that the assessment was reopened beyond the period of 4 years. Further as pointed out by the AR, there were no fresh materials which would justify the invocation of the provisions of section 147. It is also true that the AO has not brought on record any failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material fa…