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)

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Veena Mirdha, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1190/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…material information with the Ld. AO to establish escapement of income by the assessee. If the income is reassessed as business income it is merely a case of change of opinion and cited the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC). 9.3 Over-ruling the objections of the assessee, the Ld. AO completed the impugned re-assessment which has been vacated by the Ld. CIT(A) and in our opinion, rightly so. 9.4 Failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment is sine-qua-non for assuming jurisdiction under first proviso to section 147 of the Act…

DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vyoman Tradelink India Pvt. Ltd.(Ealier Known As M/S. Rupee Finance and Management Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai

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

ITA 3032/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3032/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Vyoman Tradelink Dcit-8(3)(2), India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier R. No. 615, Aayakar Known As M/S Rupee Bhavan, M. K. Road, बनाम/ Finance & Management Mumbai-400020 Pvt. Ltd.), 135, Continental Vs. Building, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcr9194C (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Nimesh Yadav, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Jay Bhansali, Ld. Ar सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 20.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 05.12.2018 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-14, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Yadav, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Jay Bhansali, Ld. AR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 151(2)

…on the basis of any tangible material coming on record albeit it is merely a ‘Change of Opinion’ which now as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India 8 I.T.A. No. 3032/Mum/2019 M/s Vyoman Tradelink India Pvt. Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC) has held that reopening on ‘Change of Opinion’ is impermissible. 7. Apart from that, once assessee had duly explained out of total expenditure at Rs. 7,46,793/-, assessee had itself disallowed Rs. 5,52,000/- in the computation of disallowance u/s 14A. The other expenses are nowhere related to earning of the exempt income when total expendit…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1315/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 164(2)

…Section 147 has to be given a schematic interpretation to ensure against an arbitrary exercise of power. The manner in which the provisions of section 147 should be construed is clarified in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561. The Supreme Court held as follows:- " ...post-1st April, 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 reopen assessments ITA No. 1315/Mum/2018 Assessment year: 2010-11 Pa…

Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Additional Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Range-II(Now Assessed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1300/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 164(2)

…Section 147 has to be given a schematic interpretation to ensure against an arbitrary exercise of power. The manner in which the provisions of section 147 should be construed is clarified in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561. The Supreme Court held as follows:- " ...post-1st April, 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 reopen assessments ITA No. 1315/Mum/2018 Assessment year: 2010-11 Pa…

ACIT - 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. (No Merged With Hdfc Bank Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6186/MUM/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar/Chaitanya JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Deharia (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6186/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2002-03) ACIT-2(3)(1) बिधम/ M/s. Lord Krishna Bank R. No.552, 5th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. (no merged with HDFC Road, Mumbai-400020. Bank Ltd.) HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACL4704F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Yogesh Thar/Chaitanya Joshi Revenue by: Shri Ashish Deharia (Sr. AR) सुनवाई की तारीख…

M/S Germinda Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1193/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

…143(1)a of the Act and no new tangible material was found and notice was given on the ground that the assessee did not offer to tax certain income. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kelvinator India Limited reported in 320 ITR 561 SC. wherein, it has been held that, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words “reason to believe”, failing which, Section 147 of the Act would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment on the basis of mere “change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. CIT v. Kelvinator of India (2010)…

Shri.Anthony Muthu Cyril Joseph, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 2(3), Chennai

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

ITA 961/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.961/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr.Anthony Muthu Cyril Joseph, V. The Income Tax Officer, No.709, Sboa School, Corporate Ward-2(3), East Gate Road, Chennai. Annanagar West Extn., Chennai-600 101. [Pan: Aaapc 4525 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.D.Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ 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.961/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr.Anthony Muthu Cyril Joseph, v. The Income Tax Officer, No.709, SBOA School, Corporate Ward-2(3), East Gate Road, Chennai. Annanagar West Extn., Chennai-600 101. [PAN: AAAPC 4525 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.D.Anand, A…

Sri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(3)(5), Bangalore

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy, ITP

Section 10(1)Section 143Section 2(14)Section 234Section 292BSection 54B

…t begs to place reliance on the following decisions i. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd v/s. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) Page 6 of 66 ii. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s. Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) 6. Therefore the Appellant respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Bench be pleased to admit the Additional Grounds of Appeal for adjudication in the interest of equity and substantial justice.” 4. It is also submitted by the Ld.AR that in the event the additional grounds is considered, assessee would not press on the main grounds raised in the…

ITO, Ward-8, Vapi vs. Shri Sajit Jeendranath Biswas, Valsad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 137/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.136 & 137/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Sanjit Jitendranath Biswas, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3, 49-76, Behind Bhagyodaya Hotel, Vapi Balda-Pardi, Vapi-396195. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afrpb3882K (Assessee)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) The Ito, Ward-3, Vs. Sanjit Jitendranath Biswas, Vapi 49-76, Behind Bhagyodaya Hotel, Balda-Pardi, Vapi-396195. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afrpb3882K (Assessee)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) Assessee By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar Respondent By Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr 13/05/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2022

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…nefit of its own wrong. It was held that section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon a mere change of opinion. On appeal by the department to the Supreme Court,(reported in 320 ITR 561(SC)) it was held that though the power to reopen under the amended section 147 is much wider, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words “reason to believe” failing 136 & 137/SRT/2020/AY.2011-12 Sanjit Jitendranath Biswas which section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the AO to re-open assessments on the basis of “mere change of…

Dr. C.S.Krishnamurthy, Chennai vs. ACIT Cuddalore Circle, Cuddalore

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

ITA 787/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.N.Hemalatha, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 192Section 68

…of fresh tangible material come to the possession of the AO subsequent to completion of first re-assessment proceedings. It is a well settled principle of law by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that the AO has power to re-open the assessment provided, there is tangible material came to the possession of the AO subsequent to completion of original assessment. In this case, from the reasons recorded by the AO what we could notice is that there is no fresh tangible material come to the…

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1991/CHNY/2002[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 1993-94

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

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80M

…assessee and the reopening was based on existing material already available on record. In such a case, the reopening would become mere review of the order which is impermissible as per the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561). We are of the opinion that the formation of belief has to be on the basis of some fresh tangible material or new information which is not the case here. This being so, reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed on legal grounds. 9. The aforesaid conclusion also find support from the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Tanmac Indi…

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 782/CHNY/2001[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 1992-93

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

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80M

…assessee and the reopening was based on existing material already available on record. In such a case, the reopening would become mere review of the order which is impermissible as per the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561). We are of the opinion that the formation of belief has to be on the basis of some fresh tangible material or new information which is not the case here. This being so, reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed on legal grounds. 9. The aforesaid conclusion also find support from the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Tanmac Indi…

Ibm India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 584/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 29Section 36(1)(vii)Section 50B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/s. IBM India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner of Arcade, Income-tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Bangalore. Vs. PAN: AAACI4403L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ajay Rotti, CA : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Revenue by Addl. CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 29-03-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 13-06-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against order dat…

M/S. Biocon Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1858/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 The Joint M/S. Biocon Ltd., Commissioner Of 20Th Km, Hosur Road, Income-Tax, Electronic City, Large Tax Payers Bangalore – 560 100. Unit [Ltu], Pan: Aaacb7461R Vs. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For A.Y. 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The ' Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals ["Cit(A)"] Dated March 28, 2018 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") For Ay 2010-11 To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Facts & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Scope Of Re-Assessment Proceedings

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha

Section 147Section 250Section 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Joint M/s. Biocon Ltd., Commissioner of 20th KM, Hosur Road, Income-tax, Electronic City, Large Tax Payers Bangalore – 560 100. Unit [LTU], PAN: AAACB7461R Vs. Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee by CA Revenue by : Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 20-04-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 09-06-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 28.03…