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.

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 561)

Lakhichand Sidara, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bilaspur

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

ITA 180/RPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.180/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-2010) Lakhi Chand Sidara, Vs Ito-1(2), Bilaspur Main Road Torwa, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan No. : Adkps 8800 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…once the issue has been examined by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment proceedings, then it is not open for the Assessing Officer to change his view. Thus, the legal precedence laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC) will squarely applicable in this case, where in it has been held that: 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 Assessi…

M/S. Kwality Biscuits Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 675/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 55(2)

…ice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year.” 17. We notice that the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) has considered a similar issue of reopening of assessment and held that - 4. 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 fulfilment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the…

ITO 1(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M Pallonji Enerprises P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas dismissed whereas cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1907/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-1(2)(3), M/S M Pallonji Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 527, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 3357 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR

Section 68

…s from the end of the relevant assessment year. within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Further we know that Hon’ble Supr Further we know that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of eme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 held the concept of held the concept of change opinion is an inbuilt test check change opinion is an inbuilt test check on abuse of power of the abuse of power of the Assessing Officer. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Assessing Officer. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court…

R.Rajagopal Tondaiman, Trichy vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Trichy

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

ITA 525/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.525/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sri R. Rajagopal Tondaiman, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No. 4-D, New No. 22, Collector Income Tax, Office Road, Trichy 620 001. Central Circle 1, Trichy. [Pan:Afbpr0712E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 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) 1, Trichy, Dated 30.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Is A Hereditary Of Raja Of Pudukottai & Stated That He Is Assessed To Tax In The Status Of Huf & Individual. The Property At Cenotaph Road, Chennai Was Given To M/S. Doshi Housing Ltd. On A Development Agreement Entered Into On 30.01.2006 Through A Power Of Attorney. The Assessing Officer Has 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…the Assessing Officer based on the same material and there was no new tangible material and thus, the ld. Counsel has submitted that it was only a change of opinion and the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 applies. He further argued that the assessment was reopened by issuing notice dated 07.03.2016 under section 148 of the Act is beyond four years from the end of the 4 I.T.A. No.525/Chny/20 relevant assessment year under consideration and submitted that the Assessing Officer has to establish that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to…

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. O.Arumugasamy, Coimbatore

ITA 777/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

What is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

Lakhichand Sidara, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bilaspur

M/S. Kwality Biscuits Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(5), Bangalore

ITO 1(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M Pallonji Enerprises P. Ltd, Mumbai

R.Rajagopal Tondaiman, Trichy vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Trichy

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. O.Arumugasamy, Coimbatore

O.Arumugasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri A. Senthilkumar, Coimbatore

A. Senthil Kumar, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. O.Arumugasamy, Coimbatore

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. O.Arumugasamy, Coimbatore

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. O.Arumugasamy, Coimbatore

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. A.Senthil Kumar, Coimbatore

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Senthil Enterprises, Coimbatore

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri T.M.Muthukumar, Coimbatore

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri O.Arumugasamy, Coimbatore

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri O.Arumugasamy, Coimbatore

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri M.Palanisamy, Coimbatore

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri M.Palanisamy, Coimbatore

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri A.Senthilkumar, Coimbatore

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri A.Senthilkumar, Coimbatore