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 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 366,470 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 147 Section 143(3)Section 148 Section 142(1)Section 151 Section 143(2)Section 68 Section 139

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

kelvinator fresh tangible material mere change of opinion first proviso to section 147 material facts necessary for assessment full and true disclosure change of opinion beyond four years live link tangible material escapement of income reason to believe

Judgments citing CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

Manoj Kumar Agarwal, Farrukhabad vs. DCIT Circle-4(2)(1) Farrukhabad, Farrukhabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 54/AGR/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…uch less to the ld AO to have live link for formation of belief that income of assessee had escaped assessment. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions:- a. Decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) on the aspect of requirement of tangible material for reopening and on change of opinion; b. Decision of Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Vipin Khanna Vs. CIT on the aspect of reassessment not permissible for making fishing and roving enquiries; c. Decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. NC Cables L…

Umar Daraj, Meerut vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(4), Meerut

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

ITA 3095/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Umar Daraj, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2)(4), 153/1, Hapur Road, Meerut. Umar Nagar, Meerut – 250 001 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Ainpd8766H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Citdr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Order : 10.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman:

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CITDR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 40A

…LE SINCE THE AO HAD EXAMINED AND ACCEPTED THE IDENTICAL BUSINESS PRACTICE IN AY 2011–12 SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, AND NO NEW MATERIAL OR CHANGE IN FACTS/LAW EXISTS — REASSESSMENT IS THUS A MERE CHANGE OF OPINION BARRED BY SUPREME COURT IN KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (320 ITR 561) 8. It is further submitted that the assessee’s case was also earlier scrutinized for AY 2011–12 and the assessment order dated 07.12.2018 (PB Pgs. 33–34) forms part of the record. In that order, the Assessing Officer examined the very same business model of the assessee, namely purchase of livestock from farmers and traders at Pashu Mandis in ca…

ACIT, Circle 3, Lucknow vs. Anshuman Singh, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 342/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…proceedings are ex-facie bad in law being without jurisdiction and are merely based on re-appreciation of material already available on record, which is prohibited in Law as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561. The following judicial pronouncement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and by the Jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad and by various other courts have upheld the above contention of the appellant: Sagar Enterprises v. Asstt. CIT [2002] 257 ITR 335, State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. M/s. Aryaverth Chawal Udyog and others, 2016 (91) VST…

Balakumar Radhakrishna, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2309/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2309/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ (एस एम सी), "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ (SMC) BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज", उपा"य" के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2309/CHNY/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Balakumar Radhakrishna, The Deputy Commissioner 3, ABM Avenue, Vs. of Income Tax, Crescent Street, Corporate Circle 5(1), RA Puram, Chennai Chennai – 600 028 PAN: BMTPR 9022D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Arjun Raj, CA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hea…

Urvashi Girishbhai Lal, Rajkot vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 466/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.466/RJT/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) Urvashi Girishbhai Lal Vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), C/O Girish Communication, IT-Office, New Aayakar Sardarnagar Main Road, Near Bhawan, Vatiaka, Astron Cinema, Rajkot - 360001 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACGPL9693J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 01/09/2025 Date of…

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad vs. Arun Kumar, Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1035/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal & C.O 118/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Arun Kumar Income Tax 201-202, 2Nd Ii-F-3 Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad Floor Cgo Complex 201001 Uttar Pradesh Hapur Chungi Ghaziabad -201002 Pan No. Aeapk1314B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal Adv

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 67Section 68

…ion on the same facts. The issue on which basis the case was re-opened has been examined and accepted by the AO in the original proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. 11. Reliance has placed on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs, Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 Supreme Court Of India (ii) Godrej Agrovet Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2010) 323 ITR 97 High Court of Bombay (iii) Balkrishna Hiralal wani v. ITO (2010) 321 ITR 519 High Court of Bombay (iv) Cartini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 275 High Court Bombay (v) Praveen P. Bharucha v. DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 High Court of Bombay (vi) Purity Teachtextile (P)…

Purnagiri Rice Mills, Shahjahanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Shahjahanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/LKW/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.251/Lkw/2017 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purnagiri Rice Mills, V. Income Tax Officer Meeran Pur Katra, Range-1(5), Shahajhanpur-242301. Shahajhanpur-242301. Pan:Aahfp6663R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28 10 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 26 11 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…s. The Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Bankipur Club Ltd vs CIT (1971) 82 ITR 831 (SC) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) to buttress the contention that in the absence of any new material, the assessment could not have been re-opened u/s 147 of the Act. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for Revenue opposed these submissions and supported the order of lower authorities. He contended that there is no infirmity Page 5 of 12 in re-op…

Lic Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5037/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Respondent: Mr. Sunil Bhandari &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 80G

…wing reviewing the the the statutory statutory statutory scheme scheme scheme and and and binding binding binding LIC Housing Finance Ltd LIC Housing Finance Ltd pronouncements of the Supreme Court including CIT v. Kelvinator CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), reiterated that reassessment cannot be (320 ITR 561), reiterated that reassessment cannot be (320 ITR 561), reiterated that reassessment cannot be founded upon a mere reappraisal of the very material which was founded upon a mere reappraisal of the very material which was founded upon a mere reappraisal of the very material which was earlier av…

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Cds Infra Projects Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue and cross-objection of Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1445/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Cds Infra Projects Ltd., B-94, Tax, Circle 4(2), Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi-110020 Pan :Aadcc0273D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s. CDS Infra Projects Ltd., B-94, Tax, Circle 4(2), Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi. New Delhi-110020 PAN :AADCC0273D (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross-Objection No.148/Del/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.1445/Del/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. CDS Infra Projects Ltd., B- Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 94, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase- Circle 4(2), II, New Delhi. New Delhi-110020 PA…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bellary vs. M/S Virgo Properties Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1181/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…that there was a failure on the part of the respondent to disclose fully and truly all the materials facts necessary for the said assessment. The Respondent relies on the following decision in support of the above submission. i.CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii.CIT Vs Canara Bank 456 ITR 316 (Karnataka) Departmental SLP dismissed in 460 ITR 6 (SC) (copy of the decision in ITA No.288 & 289 of 2018, dt.14.12.2022 and SLP orders are enclosed as Annex - I.) iii.Eurofins Peenya Resources Private Limited Vs DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1) In ITA No.1113 & 1114/Bang/2023, dt.13.12.2024 (copy enclosed as Annex-II)…

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

Year Objection No

ITA 2834/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Faroog IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…x had escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer is not required to meet the requirements laid down in Proviso to Section 147 of the Act. Having noted as above, we ffind that in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC)[18-01-2010], it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated merely on account of ‘change of opinion’. In the aforesaid case, the following issue had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court: “2. A short question which arises for determination in this batch of civil appeals is, w…

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2830/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ad escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer is not required to meet the requirements laid down in Proviso to Section 147 of the Act. 37. Having noted as above, we find that in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC)[18-01-2010], it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated merely on account of ‘change of opinion’. In the aforesaid case, the following issue had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court: “2. A short question which arises for determination in this batch of civil appeals is, w…

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2823/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

The New India Assurance Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2622/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

Year Objection No

ITA 2620/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Faroog IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2618/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…had escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer is not required to meet the requirements laid down in Proviso to Section 147 of the Act. 37. Having noted as above, we find that in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC)[18-01-2010], it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated merely on account of ‘change of opinion’. In the aforesaid case, the following issue had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court: “2. A short question which arises for determination in this batch of civil appeals is, whe…

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2616/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Hry Warehousing Corporation vs. Joint Commissioner of It

ITA/526/2005HC Punjab & Haryana20 Nov 2025

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Section 10(29)Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…equent judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be ground to re-open assessment under Section 147 of 1961 Act. The aforesaid judgment of this Court is based upon judgment of Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Kelvinator of India Limited, (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). Relevant extracts of the judgment read as: “10. The Commissioner of Income-tax and the Appellate Tribunal have noticed the detailed facts and recorded the finding as noticed above that the reassessment was on the basis of the subsequent judgment of the hon'ble apex court. Thus, apparently on the change of the opinion and in view of…

Ramasamy Kandasamy, Karur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2023/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2023/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. Ramasamy Kandasamy, The Ito, No.4/76, Sf No.927, Sukkaliyur, Ward-1, Karur-639 003. Karur. [Pan: Ajgpk 4945 H]

For Appellant: Mr.H. Yeshwanth KumarFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151

…lant was not under scrutiny. The AO had issued notice u/s 148 within prescribed time limit of the 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 4.8. Reliance is placed on of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Kelvinator India Limited, reported in 320 ITR 561(SC). The judgment of the Hon'ble supreme court in this case defines that what constitute "change of opinion" and "reason to believe". Simple test is that whether the issues constituting the reasons for reopening the case were discussed by the AO or submission on these issues were given by the assessee during the original assessment or not. If ans…

Vedanta Ltd (Earlier Known As Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd.), Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 26(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2406/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ravi Sharma & Jaskaran SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “एफ”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अवधेश कुमार िम"ा, लेखाकार सद" के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.2406/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Vedanta Ltd. (Formerly Known as the Madras Aluminum Company Ltd.), 3rd Floor, Core-6, Scope Complex, 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN: AACCS-7101-B बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 26(1), CR Building, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant by : S/…