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)

DCIT Corporate Circle 2, Chennai vs. Shriram Construction Finance, Chennai

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

ITA 343/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.317/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Shriram Construction Finance, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Mookambika Complex, No. 4, Income Tax, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 004. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafs2597N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.343/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Shriram Construction Income Tax, Finance, Mookambika Complex, Non Corporate Circle 2(1), No. 4, Lady Desika Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai Dated 26.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…8D(2)(ii) in the assessment completed u/s.143(3) on 10.12.2015 and, therefore, the initiation of proceedings u/s.147 is due to change of opinion. In this connection the appellant rely on the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator Indian Ltd (320 ITR 561) and Delhi High Court decision the case of CIT Vs Jagson International Ltd ( 321 ITR 544). 4. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that there was no fresh materials before the Assessing Officer to initiate the proceedings u/s.147 and that the reopening of the assessment was due to reappraisal of the facts already on record. 5. The CIT(A)…

M/S. Shriram Construction Finance, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 317/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.317/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Shriram Construction Finance, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Mookambika Complex, No. 4, Income Tax, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 004. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafs2597N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.343/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Shriram Construction Income Tax, Finance, Mookambika Complex, Non Corporate Circle 2(1), No. 4, Lady Desika Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai Dated 26.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…8D(2)(ii) in the assessment completed u/s.143(3) on 10.12.2015 and, therefore, the initiation of proceedings u/s.147 is due to change of opinion. In this connection the appellant rely on the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator Indian Ltd (320 ITR 561) and Delhi High Court decision the case of CIT Vs Jagson International Ltd ( 321 ITR 544). 4. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that there was no fresh materials before the Assessing Officer to initiate the proceedings u/s.147 and that the reopening of the assessment was due to reappraisal of the facts already on record. 5. The CIT(A)…

Lokesh Talanki, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 261/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Waghale CAFor Respondent: Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman Addln CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 54F

…opinion that answer to the question raised before this Bench must be rendered in the affirmative, i.e. in favor of the assessed and against the Revenue. No order as to costs. On appeal by the department to the Supreme Court, HELD dismissing the appeal [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) 10. In assessee’s case the AO in the impugned order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147, has mentioned that the AO who completed the regular assessment u/s. 143(3) has done it without due diligence and that the fact of assessee owning more than one house property other than new property would have surfaced thereby denying the deduction u/s. 54F. I…

ACIT, Non Corporate Circle - 7(1), Chennai vs. A.Thiagarajan, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2112/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2112/Chny/2017 & C.O. No. 164/Chny/2017 [In Ita No.2112/Chny/2017] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Vs Mr. A.Thiagarajan The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Plot No.67, Akshya Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-7(1) Padi, Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 098. Pan: Aabpt 1461F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent /Cross Objector) : Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.Cit अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. T.Banusekar, C.A ""यथ"क" ओर से/Respondent By : 04.04.2022 सुनवाईक"तार!ख/Date Of Hearing : 12. 04.2022 घोषणाक"तार!ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. T.Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: 04.04.2022

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37(1)

…sh C.O. No.167/Chny/2017 tangible material amounts to change of opinion which is not permissible under the law. The learned CIT(A) has discussed the issue in light of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 and also the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hardware Trading Company Ltd. (2001) 248 ITR 673 and held that note ‘not to the assessee’ from records of the Assessing Officer implied that he had very clearly and definitely formed an opinion on the issue and thus, reopening of assessment on the very same issue…

Rakesh Vaid, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 62(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal, ITA no

ITA 7821/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…1 Rakesh Vaid Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2010-11] Rakesh Vaid, Vs Income-tax Officer, H.No. 11-D, pocket-B, Ward-62(2), New Delhi. Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, New Delhi-110091 PAN- AACPV5536G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal Adv. & Sh. D.K. Gandhi Adv. Respondent by Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR Date of hearing 17.02.2022 Date of pronouncement 08.04.2022 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-t…

M/S. Spel Semiconductor Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 6 (2), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 104/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…ppellant submits that the principle that there must be tangible material on the basis of which an assessment is sought to be re-opened even within a period of four years is now well established by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator 320 ITR 561 (SC). 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of normal depreciation and additional depreciation on plant and machinery which were commissioned and put to use for production during financial year 2011-12 relevant to current assessment year 2012-13. 4.1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have…

ITO Ward 3(2), Trichy vs. Ramanathan Vasantha Priya, Trichy

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1979/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Mr. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 41

…esh tangible material in the possession of AO at the time of recording of impugned reasons is a sine qua none, before AO can record reasons for reopening of the case. In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 it is laid down that for reopening of the assessment, the AO should have in his possession 'tangible material'. The term 'tangible material' has been understood and explained by various courts subsequently. There has been unanimity of the courts on this issue that in absence of fresh material indicating escaped income, the AO cannot assume ju…

Ramanasekhar Steels Ltd., Coimbatore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Range -5, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed on legal grounds

ITA 2319/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2319/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-2008) M/S Ramanasekhar Steels Vs The Acit, Corporate Range-5, Ltd. Chennai Akshaya Plaza, Iii Floor, New No.108, Harris Road, Coimbatore-600002 Pan No. : Aaacr 2252 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri G.Baskar, Advocate राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G.Jonhnson, Addl. Cit

For Appellant: Shri G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Jonhnson, Addl. CIT

Section 139Section 142Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43B

…material in the hands of the AO at the time of initiation of reassessment proceedings, therefore, the action of the AO has to be held as bad in law on this count in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC) and the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme 3 Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Marico Ltd., in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.7367/2020, dated 01.06.2020. 3. Replying to the above, ld. Sr. DR supporting the action of the AO as well as first appellate order, submitted that the original assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act was completed on 10.…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Coastal Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 497/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 153ASection 69

…the Investigation wing, Kolkata have not been supplied to the appellant. It is submitted that the Letter from Kolkata, Investigation wing, does not provide tangible material to believe that any income escaped assessment. The Apex court in Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 561 held that without tangible information, initiation proceedings u/s 147 is not valid. Further, there is no reference to any of the various intermediaries or the amount debited by Transfer through RTGS/cheques or to the companies used for layering purpose. Thus, the Appellant submits that the assessment is validly reopened and proceedings there fro…

Sanjay Hirachand Chokad, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 32(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1801/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: B.K. Bagchi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 292B

…ances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in passing the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 by reopening the assessment for a second time u/s 148 by mere change of opinion which is bad in law as per the judgement of SC in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd (320 ITR 561 SC) even though objections were raised in this regard by the appellant u/s 292BB and therefore rendering the whole re assessment bad in law, also on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, presumption and surmises. 2 ITA No.1801/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2010-11 Sanjay Hirachand Chokad Vs. ITO, Ward 32(3)(3) 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in…

Dy CIT-CC-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 798/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 797/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2012-13 ) आअसं. 798/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2011-12 ) आअसं. 799/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 6(3), Room No.1926, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Limited, Marathon Futurex Mafatlal Mill Compound, N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. Pan: Aaacp-8032-E ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.P. Bairagra With Ms. Rupa Nanda ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri C.T. Mathews सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-54, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’], For The 2

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra with Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 147Section 148

…ear case of ‘change of opinion’. Reopening on the basis of change of opinion is unsustainable. To support his argument the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee inter-alia placed reliance on following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC) (ii) IL & FS Investment Managers Ltd. vs. ITO, 298 ITR 32 (Bom) (iii) Trent Ltd. vs. DCIT, 135 taxmann.com 222(Bom) (iv) CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. 382 ITR 574(Bom) 5.4. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee summed up his arguments supporting the impugned order and stated that the CIT(A) has rightly held reassessment proce…

Dy CIT, CC-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 797/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 797/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2012-13 ) आअसं. 798/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2011-12 ) आअसं. 799/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 6(3), Room No.1926, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Limited, Marathon Futurex Mafatlal Mill Compound, N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. Pan: Aaacp-8032-E ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.P. Bairagra With Ms. Rupa Nanda ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri C.T. Mathews सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-54, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’], For The 2

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra with Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 147Section 148

…ear case of ‘change of opinion’. Reopening on the basis of change of opinion is unsustainable. To support his argument the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee inter-alia placed reliance on following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC) (ii) IL & FS Investment Managers Ltd. vs. ITO, 298 ITR 32 (Bom) (iii) Trent Ltd. vs. DCIT, 135 taxmann.com 222(Bom) (iv) CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. 382 ITR 574(Bom) 5.4. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee summed up his arguments supporting the impugned order and stated that the CIT(A) has rightly held reassessment proce…