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)

Joshi Technologies International Inc., Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. DIT, (Intl. Taxn.), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2389/AHD/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2003-04 Joshi Technologies International Inc., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- 402, Heritage, Off. Ashram Road, Vs Tax (International Taxation), Usmanpura, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacj 9592 P Assessment Year : 2006-07 Joshi Technologies International Inc., Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 701, Parshwanath E Square, Vs Tax (International Taxation-1), Prahladnagar Garden, Near Titanium Ahmedabad Building, Satellite, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacj 9592 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate With Shri Yogesh G. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Alok Kumar, Cit-Dr & Shri Atul Pandey, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/08/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed, Am : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar Dated 12.01.2010 & Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 29.05.2015 Passed For Assessment Years 2003-04 & 2006-07 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Yogesh G. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT-DR &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 42Section 42(1)(c)Section 80I

…, it is a case of 'no opinion. Thus question of 'change of opinion' does not arise. ITA Nos. 1128/Ahd/2010 & 2389/Ahd/2015 Joshi Technologies International Inc Vs. ADIT (IT) AY : 2003-04 & 2006-07 6 9.1 In the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561/187 Taxman 312 (SC), Hon’ble J. Kapadia held that the concept of 'change of opinion' must be treated as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer and that the reasons must have a live link with formation of belief. Important excerpt of the decision is reproduced hereunder: "However, one needs to give a schematic interpreta…

Joshi Technologies International Inc., Ahmedabad vs. The ADIT., (Intnl.Taxn.), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1128/AHD/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2003-04 Joshi Technologies International Inc., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- 402, Heritage, Off. Ashram Road, Vs Tax (International Taxation), Usmanpura, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacj 9592 P Assessment Year : 2006-07 Joshi Technologies International Inc., Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 701, Parshwanath E Square, Vs Tax (International Taxation-1), Prahladnagar Garden, Near Titanium Ahmedabad Building, Satellite, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacj 9592 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate With Shri Yogesh G. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Alok Kumar, Cit-Dr & Shri Atul Pandey, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/08/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed, Am : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar Dated 12.01.2010 & Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 29.05.2015 Passed For Assessment Years 2003-04 & 2006-07 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Yogesh G. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT-DR &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 42Section 42(1)(c)Section 80I

…, it is a case of 'no opinion. Thus question of 'change of opinion' does not arise. ITA Nos. 1128/Ahd/2010 & 2389/Ahd/2015 Joshi Technologies International Inc Vs. ADIT (IT) AY : 2003-04 & 2006-07 6 9.1 In the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561/187 Taxman 312 (SC), Hon’ble J. Kapadia held that the concept of 'change of opinion' must be treated as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer and that the reasons must have a live link with formation of belief. Important excerpt of the decision is reproduced hereunder: "However, one needs to give a schematic interpreta…

The Income Tax Officer -1, Raigarh, Raigarh(Cg) vs. Shri Shri Parmanand Gupta, Raigarh, Raigarh(Cg)

ITA 82/BIL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 82/Rpr/2017 Co. No. 02/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Parmanand Gupta, Alochan Agrawal, L/H. Of Late Shri Parmanand Gupta, Prop. M/S. Balaji Handloom, 19/48, Palace Road, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan : Afdpg4961L ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…er settled position of law cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down on the said count. In order to support his aforesaid claim the Ld. AR had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). 17. After having given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us, we find substance in the aforesaid claim of the Ld. 28 ITO-1 Vs. Shri Parmanand Gupta CO No.02/RPR/2022 AR. On a perusal of “reasons to believe” on the basis of which the case of the assessee had been reopened by the A.O u/s.147 of the Act, it transpires that the s…

Marve Beach Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 10 (3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7830/MUM/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemarve Beach Realtors Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 10(3)(2) Room No. 673 161-C, Mittal Tower, C-Wing Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Rajni Patel Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacm6031E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Narayan Atal Department By : Shri Suresh Periasamy

For Appellant: Shri Narayan AtalFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…cord that in A.Y. 2005-06 the Coordinate Bench has also allowed the claim of the assessee to treat the licence fee income as “Income from Business”. 11. We observe from the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: - “Prior to the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, reopening could be done under two conditions, viz, if (a) the ITO had reason to believe that, by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return under section 139 for any assessment year to the ITO or to disclose ful…

Prince Gold & Diamonds India P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 428/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.427 & 428/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S. Prince Gold & Diamonds India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of P. Ltd., 3, Nana Street, T. Nagar, Income Tax, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle 1(4), Chennai. [Pan: Aaecp1891R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D. Palanivel, Advocate Department By : Ms. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 28.06.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Both Dated 31.08.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. Besides Challenging Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”], The Assessee Has Also Disputed The Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Purchase On Merits In Both The Assessment Years Under Consideration.

For Appellant: Shri D. Palanivel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…re on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts, reopening of assessment merely on a change of opinion, which is not permissible as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC). The ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that no incriminating materials relating to third party found during the course of search in the case of 5 I.T.A. Nos. 427 & 428/Chny/21 the assessee and based on the information from Investigation Wing and the statement of third party cannot be a basis to form reason to believe for re…

Prince Gold & Diamonds India P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 427/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.427 & 428/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S. Prince Gold & Diamonds India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of P. Ltd., 3, Nana Street, T. Nagar, Income Tax, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle 1(4), Chennai. [Pan: Aaecp1891R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D. Palanivel, Advocate Department By : Ms. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 28.06.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Both Dated 31.08.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. Besides Challenging Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”], The Assessee Has Also Disputed The Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Purchase On Merits In Both The Assessment Years Under Consideration.

For Appellant: Shri D. Palanivel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…re on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts, reopening of assessment merely on a change of opinion, which is not permissible as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC). The ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that no incriminating materials relating to third party found during the course of search in the case of 5 I.T.A. Nos. 427 & 428/Chny/21 the assessee and based on the information from Investigation Wing and the statement of third party cannot be a basis to form reason to believe for re…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -4, Kolkata vs. Graphite India Ltd

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

ITAT/207/2016HC Calcutta02 Aug 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : August 02, 2022. Appearance : Mr. Aryak Dutta, Adv ….For Appellant Mr. Somak Basu, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 8Th January, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In I.T.A. No. 398/Kol/2008 & I.T.A. No. 537/Kol/2008 For The Assessment Year 2000-2001 Respectively. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Quashing The Order Passed Under Section 147 Of The Said Act Despite The Fact That There Was Failure On The Part Of The Assessee To Disclose Material Facts In The

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 260ASection 80I

…O - 23 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/207/2016 IA NO: GA/1/2016 (OLD NO. GA/2156/2016) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-4, KOLKATA VS. GRAPHITE INDIA LIMITED BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : AUGUST 02, 2022. Appearance : Mr. Aryak Dutta, Adv ….for appellant Mr. Somak Basu, Adv. …for respondent The Court : This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 8th January, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tri…

Shri Vishal Jagdishbhai Mehta, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(5), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 627/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…have the effect of giving the assessing officer the power of review and Section 147 confers the power to re- assess and not the power to review. 5.1 Again, the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561(SC)held that assessing officer does not have power of review his order under section 147 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following observations: 6. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reass…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai vs. P.Janakiraman, Chennai

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

ITA 2079/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2079/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri P. Janakiraman, Income Tax, New No. 2, Old No. 3, R-Block, Plot No. 3822, 6Th Avenue, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 034. Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. [Pan:Aajpj1327J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022 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) 7, Chennai, Dated 23.06.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09 Quashing The Reassessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…e ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings twice passed in this case. After considering the submissions of the assessee and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC), the ld. CIT(A) has held that the reassessment proceedings to be bad in law and accordingly the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 30.03.2016. 4. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the materials available on record and gone through th…

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

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

ITA 3293/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3293/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New No. 21/Old No. 10A, 1St Floor, Income Tax, 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 D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2022 : 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 28.09.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2008-09 On 13.09.2008 Disclosing Total Income Of ₹.1,83,53,540/- After Setting Off Of Carry Forward Loss Of ₹.9,67,40,138/-.

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCITFor Respondent: Shri N. Arjunraj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…31.12.2010. The subsequent reopening on the same set of facts with no failure on the part of the appellant to disclose material facts would tantamount to mere "change of opinion". In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) observed that.. .. 5 I.T.A. No. 3293/Chny/16 (quote)"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 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere chan…

Biological E Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1589/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 1589/Hyd/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Biological E Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Hyderabad Income Tax, [PAN No. AAACB7873P] Cicle-1(2), Hyderabad अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee by: Shri V.Siva Kumar, AR राज" व "ारा/Revenue by: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 28/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement on: 22/07/2022 आदेश…

Sri P. Murugan, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw - 2 (4), Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I

ITA 2257/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:2257/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2009 – 2010

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Ravindra T. Mishra, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147

…n in regard to the rate of percentage of profit mentioned in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer which is not permissible in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kelvinator of India Limited [320 ITR 561] and hence ought to have allowed the appeal of the Appellant. 6. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed before the Hon’ble ITAT that the order of the Assessing Officer may be set aside and the additions made in the reassessment proceedings may kindly be deleted and render justice.” 3. We have heard…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Sumir J Hinduja, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R

Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…se reasons cannot be supplemented or improved upon subsequently.” ITA Nos.1373 & 1374/Bang/2012 & CO. Nos.48 & 49/Bang/2013 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja, Bangalore Page 16 of 78 (ii) Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 at 564 wherein it was held as under:- “On going through the changes, quoted above, made to s the Act, we find that, prior to the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) reopening could be done under the above two conditions and the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the Assessing make a back assessment, but in section 147 of the Act (with effect…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Jagadish N Hinduja, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1373/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R

Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…se reasons cannot be supplemented or improved upon subsequently.” ITA Nos.1373 & 1374/Bang/2012 & CO. Nos.48 & 49/Bang/2013 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja, Bangalore Page 16 of 78 (ii) Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 at 564 wherein it was held as under:- “On going through the changes, quoted above, made to s the Act, we find that, prior to the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) reopening could be done under the above two conditions and the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the Assessing make a back assessment, but in section 147 of the Act (with effect…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kol -3, Kol vs. M/S. West Bengal Essencial Commodities Supply Corp.Ltd, Kol

ITAT/426/2016HC Calcutta21 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…fore the assessing officer, at the first instance, increase in freight charges vis-à- vis purchases were very much available before the assessing officer. Further, the learned tribunal took note of the decision in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) and applied the said decision to the facts of the case and held that the assessing officer does not refer to any new material that 4 came into his possession based on which he entertained to believe that income of the assessee chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Further, the nature of activities done by the assessee was taken note o…

The DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Cims Hospital (Previously Known As Care Cardiovascular Consultant P.Ltd.), Ahmedabad

ITA 306/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate, with Shri Bandish Soparkar, AdvocteFor Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT DR & Shri V

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…hange of opinion does not justify the action of issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee also relied on the following decision in support of its claim and requested to drop the assessment proceedings. a. M/s Kelvinator of India Ltd. vs. CIT 320 ITR 561 (SC) b. H. K. Buildcon Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer (2010) 40 DTR 227 (Gujarat High Court)” 10. However, such plea of the assessee was not found acceptable by the Ld. AO and relying upon several judgments passed by different Judicial Forum the Ld. AO rejected the objection raised by the assessee. 11. Consequently notice under Section 143(2) date…

The DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Cims Hospital (Previously Known As Care Cardiovascular Consultant P.Ltd.), Ahmedabad

ITA 305/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate, with Shri Bandish Soparkar, AdvocteFor Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT DR & Shri V

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…hange of opinion does not justify the action of issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee also relied on the following decision in support of its claim and requested to drop the assessment proceedings. a. M/s Kelvinator of India Ltd. vs. CIT 320 ITR 561 (SC) b. H. K. Buildcon Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer (2010) 40 DTR 227 (Gujarat High Court)” 10. However, such plea of the assessee was not found acceptable by the Ld. AO and relying upon several judgments passed by different Judicial Forum the Ld. AO rejected the objection raised by the assessee. 11. Consequently notice under Section 143(2) date…

West Bengal Infrastructure Finance Corporation Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-6(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 564/KOL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14A

…tion. The informations were already possessed by the Revenue and those were scrutinized. The ld. counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing made reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Limited reported in 320 ITR 561 and in this case, Hon’ble Supreme Court concurred to the decision of Full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and has held that on mere change of opinion, assessment cannot be reopened. The ld. CIT (DR), on the other hand, relied upon the judgment in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Limited –vs.- DCIT reported in 340 ITR page 53. In this j…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kol-1, Kolkata vs. Cheviot Company Limited

ITAT/420/2016HC Calcutta11 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…10B of the Act and also exemption on receipts relating to EMA. Accordingly, we find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against revenue by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. (2010) 310 ITR 561 (SC), wherein newly substituted provision of Section 147 of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.1989 is interpreted by observing that Section 147 of the Act, as substituted w.e.f. 1.4.1989 does not postulates conferment of power upon the AO to initiate reassessment proceeding upon his mere change of opinion.” Thus, the Tribunal after elaborately considering the f…

Rohit Devidas Nadkani, Banda vs. Pr Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 71/PUN/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.71/PUN/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Rohit Devidas Nadkarni, At Galel, Post-Banda, Taluka-Sawantwadi, Distt.-Sindhudurg – 416511 PAN : AEEPN4352G ......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur ……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kumar Kale Revenue by : Shri Sardar Singh Meena सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 24-06-2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Da…

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.

Joshi Technologies International Inc., Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. DIT, (Intl. Taxn.), Ahmedabad

Joshi Technologies International Inc., Ahmedabad vs. The ADIT., (Intnl.Taxn.), Ahmedabad

The Income Tax Officer -1, Raigarh, Raigarh(Cg) vs. Shri Shri Parmanand Gupta, Raigarh, Raigarh(Cg)

Marve Beach Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 10 (3)(2), Mumbai

Prince Gold & Diamonds India P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

Prince Gold & Diamonds India P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -4, Kolkata vs. Graphite India Ltd

Shri Vishal Jagdishbhai Mehta, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(5), Vadodara

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai vs. P.Janakiraman, Chennai

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

Biological E Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

Sri P. Murugan, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw - 2 (4), Madurai

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Sumir J Hinduja, Bangalore

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Jagadish N Hinduja, Bangalore

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kol -3, Kol vs. M/S. West Bengal Essencial Commodities Supply Corp.Ltd, Kol

The DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Cims Hospital (Previously Known As Care Cardiovascular Consultant P.Ltd.), Ahmedabad

The DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Cims Hospital (Previously Known As Care Cardiovascular Consultant P.Ltd.), Ahmedabad

West Bengal Infrastructure Finance Corporation Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-6(2), Kolkata

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kol-1, Kolkata vs. Cheviot Company Limited

Rohit Devidas Nadkani, Banda vs. Pr Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kolhapur