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 367,368 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.

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3201/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3201-3202, 3203-3204 & 3205/Chny/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Of Income Tax, No.2, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.18/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- V. M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), No.2, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

…ore, he submitted that in absence of fresh tangible material, re-opening of assessment is invalid and liable to be quashed. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) and also the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of RPG Transmissions Ltd., reported in [2014] 48 taxmann.com 57 (Madras). 19. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A), submitted that assessment for the impugned assessment year has been re-opened within four years from the end of the relevant…

Ai Champdany Industries Ltd vs. Commissioner, Income Tax, Central - II Kolkata, West Bengal

In the result, we find that the order of the

ITA/32/2005HC Calcutta16 Sept 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 80H

…rted to. The answer to the said question should be in negative and in favour of the assessee. Further, we also take note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 2010 320 ITR 561 (SC) wherein it was pointed out that one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words “reason to believe”; failing which Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the assessing officers to reopen the assessment on the basis of the mere “change of opinion” which cannot be per se reason to reopen. In fact, the CIT(A) took note of the…

Sh. Mangat Trehan, Hoshiarpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income -Tax, Hoshiarpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 223/Asr/2019 is 10

ITA 223/ASR/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…ch the AO issued the notice u/s 147/148 of the Act. The AO did not mention anything related to the same in his reasons recorded. The ld. Counsel had respectfully relied of the orders of apex court which are as below: - “a. “CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.” 320 ITR 561 (S.C.) b. “M/s Mobis India Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT” WMP No.9819 of 2016 dated of order 24.01.2018, Madras High Court.” 7. The ld. DR relied on the order of revenue authorities and mentioned the relevant part of order of ld. CIT(A) in para no.10.2 which is reproduced as under: - I.T.A. No. 223/Asr/2019 9 “10.2 During appeal proceedings, the ld. Couns…

Jubilee Mission Hospital, Kakkanad vs. The DCIT, Kochi

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

ITA 91/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

…Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 3 of 19 5. He also submitted that the re-assessment proceedings have not emanated from any new material coming to light. a) CIT, Cochin Vs. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (410 ITR 423)(Kerala HC) b) CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. (320 ITR 561)(SC) 6. The Ld. D.R. relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the reasons for reopening as mentioned by the assessing officer in the assessment order was also duly examined by him. The assessee had two units namely Jubilee Mission Medical College and Jubilee Mission Nursing College. Though these independent units came into existence…

Jubilee Mission Hospital., Thrissur vs. The DCIT, Kochi

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

ITA 90/COCH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

…Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 3 of 19 5. He also submitted that the re-assessment proceedings have not emanated from any new material coming to light. a) CIT, Cochin Vs. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (410 ITR 423)(Kerala HC) b) CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. (320 ITR 561)(SC) 6. The Ld. D.R. relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the reasons for reopening as mentioned by the assessing officer in the assessment order was also duly examined by him. The assessee had two units namely Jubilee Mission Medical College and Jubilee Mission Nursing College. Though these independent units came into existence…

Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur vs. The DCIT, Kochi

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

ITA 89/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

…Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 3 of 19 5. He also submitted that the re-assessment proceedings have not emanated from any new material coming to light. a) CIT, Cochin Vs. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (410 ITR 423)(Kerala HC) b) CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. (320 ITR 561)(SC) 6. The Ld. D.R. relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the reasons for reopening as mentioned by the assessing officer in the assessment order was also duly examined by him. The assessee had two units namely Jubilee Mission Medical College and Jubilee Mission Nursing College. Though these independent units came into existence…

Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur vs. The DCIT, Thrissur

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

ITA 88/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

…Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 3 of 19 5. He also submitted that the re-assessment proceedings have not emanated from any new material coming to light. a) CIT, Cochin Vs. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (410 ITR 423)(Kerala HC) b) CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. (320 ITR 561)(SC) 6. The Ld. D.R. relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the reasons for reopening as mentioned by the assessing officer in the assessment order was also duly examined by him. The assessee had two units namely Jubilee Mission Medical College and Jubilee Mission Nursing College. Though these independent units came into existence…

Gmr Air Cargo & Aerospace Engineering Ltd(Successor to Gmr Hyderabad Air Cargo & Logistics Pvt Ltd), Shamshabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 183/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Gmr Air Cargo & Vs. Ito,Ward-2(3) Aerospace Engineering Signature Towers Ltd.(Successor To Gmr Kondapur, Kothaguda Hyderabad Air Cargo & Opp. Botanical Gardens Logistics Pvt Ltd.) R.R.District Rajiv Gandhi International Hyderabad-500 084 Airport, Samshabad Hyderabad-500 409

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37

…material facts necessary for completion of the assessment can be made when the initial assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961. 22. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd reported in 320 ITR 561 has held that where accounts had been furnished by assessee when called upon and thereafter assessment was completed u/s. 143(3), subsequently on a mere re-look of said account earlier 13 ITA 183/Hyd/2020 furnished by assessee it is not permissible u/s. 147 to reopen assessment of assessee on ground that income has escaped assessment 23. We fin…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata vs. B.P.Poddar Foundation for Education

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITAT/143/2021HC Calcutta13 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(b)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…g been deleted by the CIT(A) vide order dated 30.07.2019, the reassessment on the heads which were not part of the reasons recorded for the reopening the assessment is not sustainable. The 2 (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) ITAT NO. 143 OF 2021 Page 6 of 16 learned Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Jet Airways (I) Ltd.3 and the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Versus CIT 4 . On the above grounds the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. Challen…

Sabari Foundations P Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I

ITA 2744/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:2744/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2010 - 2011

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…India Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – I, Pondicherry (supra) has considered an identical situation by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kelvinator of India reported in [2010] 320 ITR 561 and held that “What is sought to be done by the re-assessment ought to have been achieved by scrutiny assessment proceedings. Having missed the bus earlier, the Department cannot be permitted to avail of the extended time limit in the absence of any new or tangible material. The Hon’ble Madras High Court has considered this issue in paragraph…

ACIT, Kancheepuram vs. Sadasivan Jayabalan, Kanchipuram

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

ITA 189/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:189/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2012 - 2013 The Acit, Shri Sadasivan Jayabalan, Circle – 1, Vs. No.243, Eswara Nagar, Kancheepuram. Main Road, Veppampattu, Tiruvallur Taluk & District Pincode – 602 024 Pan: Aqqpj 7037A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 46ASection 56(2)(vii)

…same would amount to giving a premium to an authority exercising quasi- judicial function to take benefit of its own wrong.” The above said decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered that there cannot be change of opinion based on the - 9 - ITA No.189/CHNY/2019 material which was already available with the AO at the time of original assessment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that there should be some tangible material came to the notice of the AO after completion…

M/S. Seastem Ltd., Rajkot vs. The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar

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

ITA 301/RJT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 301/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2010-2011 Seastem Ltd., D.C.I.T., First Floor, Vs. Circle-1, Royal Corner, Jamnagar. Dr. Yagnik Road, Rajkot. Pan: Aahcs9428G

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(1)Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, And SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 301/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2010-2011 Seastem Ltd., D.C.I.T., First Floor, Vs. Circle-1, Royal Corner, Jamnagar. Dr. Yagnik Road, Rajkot. PAN: AAHCS9428G Assessee by : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R Revenue by : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 07/07/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 07/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER BENCH: The captioned appeal has been filed at the in…

Wheels India Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Ltu 1 Chennai, Chennai

Appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2770/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.S. Deeptha (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43A

…ppellant submits that the principle that there must be tangible material on the basis of which an assessment is sought to be re-opened even within a period of four years is now well established by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator 320 ITR 561 (SC). 2.4 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the DCIT had disallowed an expense which was not recorded in the reason for reopening the assessment. 3. Without prejudice to the above, The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming that the amount of realized foreign exchange loss arising at the tim…

ACIT Ltu 2 Chennai, Chennai vs. Wheels India Limited, Chennai

Appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2700/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.S. Deeptha (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43A

…ppellant submits that the principle that there must be tangible material on the basis of which an assessment is sought to be re-opened even within a period of four years is now well established by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator 320 ITR 561 (SC). 2.4 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the DCIT had disallowed an expense which was not recorded in the reason for reopening the assessment. 3. Without prejudice to the above, The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming that the amount of realized foreign exchange loss arising at the tim…

ACIT, Ncc-22, Chennai vs. Smt. Rajeswari Kumar, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 3286/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3286/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Rajeswari Kumar, The Acit, No.9, Vellakottai, Non-Corporate Circle 22, Vs. Tmk Variyar Avenue, Tambaram, Chennai. Keelakattalai, Chennai – 600 117. Pan: Aafpk 0536J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O. No.: 2/Chny/2020 [In I.T.A. No.3286/Chny/2019] Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Rajeswari Kumar, The Acit, No.9, Vellakottai, Vs. Non-Corporate Circle 22, Tmk Variyar Avenue, Tambaram, Chennai. Keelakattalai, Chennai – 600 117. Pan: Aafpk 0536J (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"/Appellant) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(iv)

…erm capital gain amounting to Rs.47,21,690/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4 I.T.A. No.3286/Chny/2019 & C.O No.2/Chny/2020 4. The CIT(A) relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 quashed the reassessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, by stating that the reopening has been made merely on change of opinion. Aggrieved, Revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the reasons recorded for reopening of as…

Vizag Seaport P.Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. CIT(A) 14, Mumbai

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

ITA 2479/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…ainst the Revenue and consequently, it is held that the reopening of the reassessment is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi v. Kelvinator Of India Limited reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) held as follows: 10 ………where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to re-open the assessment. Therefore, post 1-4-1989 , power to reopen is much wider. However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe" failing which, we are afraid, section 14…

Vizag Seaport P.Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. CIT(A) 14, Mumbai

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

ITA 2478/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…ainst the Revenue and consequently, it is held that the reopening of the reassessment is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi v. Kelvinator Of India Limited reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) held as follows: 10 ………where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to re-open the assessment. Therefore, post 1-4-1989 , power to reopen is much wider. However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe" failing which, we are afraid, section 14…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Vizag Seaport P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2402/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…ainst the Revenue and consequently, it is held that the reopening of the reassessment is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi v. Kelvinator Of India Limited reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) held as follows: 10 ………where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to re-open the assessment. Therefore, post 1-4-1989 , power to reopen is much wider. However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe" failing which, we are afraid, section 14…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Vizag Seaport P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2401/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…ainst the Revenue and consequently, it is held that the reopening of the reassessment is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi v. Kelvinator Of India Limited reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) held as follows: 10 ………where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to re-open the assessment. Therefore, post 1-4-1989 , power to reopen is much wider. However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe" failing which, we are afraid, section 14…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Vizag Seaport P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2400/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…ainst the Revenue and consequently, it is held that the reopening of the reassessment is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi v. Kelvinator Of India Limited reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) held as follows: 10 ………where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to re-open the assessment. Therefore, post 1-4-1989 , power to reopen is much wider. However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe" failing which, we are afraid, section 14…