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)

Enviro Technology Limited, Ankleshwar vs. The ACIT., Bharuch Circle, Bharuch

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2019/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…, notice issued within the period of four years from the end of relevant assessment years, issuance of such notice has to be held as nothing but a change of opinion on the part of Assessing Officer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd (320 ITR 561 SC) held that the assessing officer has no power to review, he has a power to reassess, but the reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain pre-conditions and if the concept of ‘change of opinion’ is removed as contemplated on behalf of revenue, then in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. It was further held t…

Enviro Technology Limited, Ankleshwar vs. The ACIT., Bharuch Circle, Bharuch

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2018/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…, notice issued within the period of four years from the end of relevant assessment years, issuance of such notice has to be held as nothing but a change of opinion on the part of Assessing Officer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd (320 ITR 561 SC) held that the assessing officer has no power to review, he has a power to reassess, but the reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain pre-conditions and if the concept of ‘change of opinion’ is removed as contemplated on behalf of revenue, then in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. It was further held t…

ITO, Non Corporate Ward -15(3), Chennai vs. Shri Ramachandra Raman, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.124/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 & C.O. No. 58/Chny/2018 [In I.T.A. No.124/Chny/2018] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Ramachandra Raman, Non Corporate Ward 15(3), 21B, Deccan Parvathy, 2Nd Floor, Room No. 206, Wanaparthy Kannappa Nagar Extension, Block, 121, M.G. Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 41. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aehpr6467D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 28.09.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Is In Respect Of Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 3Section 54ESection 54F

…llow exemptions under section 54EC & 54F of the Act tantamount to review of the original assessment order, which is mere change of opinion and not permissible in view of the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC), the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. Thus, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for quashing the reassessment order. 5 I.T.A. No.124/Chny/18 & C.O. No.58/Chny/18 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) with regard to reopening of…

L.H Sugar Factories Ltd., Pilibhit vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly

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

ITA 193/LKW/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2011-12 L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. V. The Dy. Cit Civil Lines Circle Ii Pilibhit Bareilly Tan/Pan:Lknl05038F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Smt. Sheela Chopra, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 01 06 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07 06 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Sheela Chopra, CIT (DR)

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151

…belief other than that in the assessment order. This is a clear Change of Opinion on the same facts on record. This is not permissible in the law as held in various judicial decisions including by Honble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561(SC).” 6. In ‘GKN Driveshafts Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO and Others’ (supra) (relied on by the ld. A.R. of the assessee), on receipt of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for forming a belief of escapement of income, the noticee is entitled to file objections to Page 4 of 4 the issuance of the notice for re-assessment, which objections the Ass…

The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Mohammedarif Ibrahimbhai Shaikh, Ahmedabad

ITA 962/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR &For Respondent: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL AT AHMEDABAD] BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD M JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1115/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) ITO Vs. Mohammedarif Ibrahimbhai Ward-1(2)(3), Shaikh, Prop. of M/s. I.K. Ahmedabad International, House No. 314, Baitul Ibrahim, Kagdiwad, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006 [PAN No. AHEPS2816H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) C.O. No. 10/Ahd/2022 (in ITA No. 1115/Ahd/2019) (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Mohammedarif Ibrahimbhai Shaikh Vs. ITO House No. 314, Baitul Ibrahim, Ward-1(2)(3), Kagdiwa…

The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Mohammedarif Ibrahimbhai Shaikh, Ahmedabad

ITA 1115/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR &For Respondent: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL AT AHMEDABAD] BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD M JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1115/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) ITO Vs. Mohammedarif Ibrahimbhai Ward-1(2)(3), Shaikh, Prop. of M/s. I.K. Ahmedabad International, House No. 314, Baitul Ibrahim, Kagdiwad, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006 [PAN No. AHEPS2816H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) C.O. No. 10/Ahd/2022 (in ITA No. 1115/Ahd/2019) (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Mohammedarif Ibrahimbhai Shaikh Vs. ITO House No. 314, Baitul Ibrahim, Ward-1(2)(3), Kagdiwa…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1219/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

…The Learned DR reiterated the stand of the Revenue as contained in grounds 2 to 4 raised by the Revenue before us. Learned Counsel for the assessee, besides relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC) also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Dell International Pvt. Ltd., 432 ITR 212 (Karn.) (Full Bench). 34. We have given a very careful consideration to the rival submissions. A bare perusal of the reasons recorded by the AO which has been reproduced in the earlier part of the order, shows that whatever h…

Jupiter Capital P. Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1601/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

…The Learned DR reiterated the stand of the Revenue as contained in grounds 2 to 4 raised by the Revenue before us. Learned Counsel for the assessee, besides relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC) also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Dell International Pvt. Ltd., 432 ITR 212 (Karn.) (Full Bench). 34. We have given a very careful consideration to the rival submissions. A bare perusal of the reasons recorded by the AO which has been reproduced in the earlier part of the order, shows that whatever h…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1563/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

…The Learned DR reiterated the stand of the Revenue as contained in grounds 2 to 4 raised by the Revenue before us. Learned Counsel for the assessee, besides relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC) also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Dell International Pvt. Ltd., 432 ITR 212 (Karn.) (Full Bench). 34. We have given a very careful consideration to the rival submissions. A bare perusal of the reasons recorded by the AO which has been reproduced in the earlier part of the order, shows that whatever h…

Shri R Pannerselvam, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

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

ITA 3356/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 54F

…with the ld. AO for recording of reasons to believe to initiate the proceedings u/s 148 rws 147 of the Act which is not so in the present case. Our view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) wherein it was held in Para 4 as under - “…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 change of opini…

M/S. Global Trading Co., Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 112/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 112/CHNY/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2012-13 M/s. Global Trading Company, The Income Tax Officer, New No.448, Old No.599, v. Non-Corporate Ward 3(1), B Block, 2nd Floor No.3, Chennai Gemini Parsn Apartment, Cathedral Garden Road, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600006. PAN: AAAFG 0447P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/App…

ACIT 4 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Securities Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 7357/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh IraniFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 73

…n without any fresh material. In the order rejecting objections, the AO has failed to controvert the objections of the Assessee in this regard. The Assessee placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his contentions - CIT v. Kelvinator of India: 320 ITR 561 (SC), NYK Lines (India) Limited Vs DCIT: 346 ITR 361 (Bom), Purity Textiles (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT: 325 ITR 459 (Bom) and Asian Paints Ltd. vs. DCIT308 ITR 195 (Bom). 10. Per Contra, Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the order passed by CIT(A) rejecting the contention of the Assessee relating 6 ITA. No. 7357/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-…

Sri. H.J. Siwani, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed to the extent indicated

ITA 601/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri. Annamalli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…basis of the reasons recorded was nothing but a mere change of opinion, which was not permissible under law. Reliance is placed on the ITA Nos.600, 601/Bang/2015 Page 15 of 22 decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (SC), 320 ITR 561. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Vs. CIT, reported in 308 ITR 38. It was submitted that the assessing officer who passed the order under section 143(3) has examined all and passed the assessment order. Hence, the present Assessing officer has no jurisdictio…

Sri. M.J. Siwani, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed to the extent indicated

ITA 600/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri. Annamalli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…basis of the reasons recorded was nothing but a mere change of opinion, which was not permissible under law. Reliance is placed on the ITA Nos.600, 601/Bang/2015 Page 15 of 22 decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (SC), 320 ITR 561. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Vs. CIT, reported in 308 ITR 38. It was submitted that the assessing officer who passed the order under section 143(3) has examined all and passed the assessment order. Hence, the present Assessing officer has no jurisdictio…

Shri Abhay Kumar Jain, Raipur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 23/RPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 23/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Abhay Kumar Jain, Prop. M/S. Jain Fabrics, Mahalaxmi Market, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Achpj5173C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shravankumar Meena, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40Section 69

…Nil cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction on his part. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had 7 Shri Abhay Kumar Jain Vs. ACIT-3(1) observed, that the case of an assessee cannot be reopened on the basis of a mere “change of opinion‟, holding as under:- "On going through the changes, quoted above, made to s. 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, reopening could…

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat vs. Shri Jitendra Kumar Pukhraj Ranka, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 291/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.291/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Jitendra Pukhraj Ranka, Surat. Prop Of M/S P Jitendra & Co., 304/A, Sumangal Appt., Jadda Khadi, Mahidharpura, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abhpj0571F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ca Revenue By : Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A)-I/11694/2018-19 Dated 27.03.2019, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Dated 23.03.2016. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows: “(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Quashing Reopened Assessment Proceedings For Ay 2008-09. (Ii) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate Decision Of Larger Bench Of Hon'Ble Gujarat High Court In The Case Of A.L.A Firm Vs Cit, 189 (1991) Itr 285, Whereas The Hon'Ble High Court Has Held That The Jurisdiction Of The Ito To Reassess Income Arises If He Has Reassessed Based On Specific & Relevant Information Coming Into His

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143Section 147Section 148

…vidence with the AO, which was not before him during the original assessment proceedings, therefore, it is a clear case of change of opinion on the same material. As per ratio of the decision of Hon'ble- Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 561 (Supreme Court) after 1st April 1989, AO has power to reopen the assessment under section 147 provided AO-has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income; mere "change of opinion" cannot per se he reason to reopen. As per ratio of the recent decis…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax-Central Circle-1, Raipur, Raipur (Cg) vs. Shri Shri Rakesh Pandey, Raipur, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 8/BIL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos. 08 & 09/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…ubstitution of a view as that of a predecessor by a successor A.O cannot form a justifiable basis for reopening the case of an assessee. In fact, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its landmark judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) had held, that merely on the basis of a “change of opinion‟ the case of an assessee cannot be reopened, observing as under:- "On going through the changes, quoted above, made to s. 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, reopening could be done under above two conditions and fulfilment of the said condit…

M/S Cmdc Icpl Coal Limited, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3(1), Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 350/BIL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 348, 349 & 350/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Cmdc Icpl Coal Limited House No.382, Sunder Nagar, Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc4374P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer 3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca Revenue By : Shri G.N Singh, Dr

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…147, dated 20.03.2015 could not be sustained and was liable to be struck down on the said count itself. In support of his aforesaid contention the Ld. AR had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). Apart from that, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the assessee company prior to commencement of its commercial operations, had duly accounted for the interest earned on the funds which were received by way of share capital and were temporarily parked with the banks for productive exploitation and effective reduction A.Ys.2009-10, 2010…

M/S Cmdc Icpl Coal Limited, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3(1), Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 349/BIL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 348, 349 & 350/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Cmdc Icpl Coal Limited House No.382, Sunder Nagar, Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc4374P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer 3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca Revenue By : Shri G.N Singh, Dr

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…147, dated 20.03.2015 could not be sustained and was liable to be struck down on the said count itself. In support of his aforesaid contention the Ld. AR had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). Apart from that, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the assessee company prior to commencement of its commercial operations, had duly accounted for the interest earned on the funds which were received by way of share capital and were temporarily parked with the banks for productive exploitation and effective reduction A.Ys.2009-10, 2010…

M/S Cmdc Icpl Coal Limited, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3(1), Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 348/BIL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 348, 349 & 350/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Cmdc Icpl Coal Limited House No.382, Sunder Nagar, Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc4374P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer 3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca Revenue By : Shri G.N Singh, Dr

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…147, dated 20.03.2015 could not be sustained and was liable to be struck down on the said count itself. In support of his aforesaid contention the Ld. AR had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). Apart from that, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the assessee company prior to commencement of its commercial operations, had duly accounted for the interest earned on the funds which were received by way of share capital and were temporarily parked with the banks for productive exploitation and effective reduction A.Ys.2009-10, 2010…

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.

Enviro Technology Limited, Ankleshwar vs. The ACIT., Bharuch Circle, Bharuch

Enviro Technology Limited, Ankleshwar vs. The ACIT., Bharuch Circle, Bharuch

ITO, Non Corporate Ward -15(3), Chennai vs. Shri Ramachandra Raman, Chennai

L.H Sugar Factories Ltd., Pilibhit vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly

The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Mohammedarif Ibrahimbhai Shaikh, Ahmedabad

The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Mohammedarif Ibrahimbhai Shaikh, Ahmedabad

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Jupiter Capital P. Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Shri R Pannerselvam, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

M/S. Global Trading Co., Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-3(1), Chennai

ACIT 4 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Securities Ltd., Mumbai

Sri. H.J. Siwani, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

Sri. M.J. Siwani, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

Shri Abhay Kumar Jain, Raipur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3(1), Raipur

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat vs. Shri Jitendra Kumar Pukhraj Ranka, Surat

The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax-Central Circle-1, Raipur, Raipur (Cg) vs. Shri Shri Rakesh Pandey, Raipur, Raipur (Cg)

M/S Cmdc Icpl Coal Limited, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3(1), Raipur (Cg)

M/S Cmdc Icpl Coal Limited, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3(1), Raipur (Cg)

M/S Cmdc Icpl Coal Limited, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3(1), Raipur (Cg)