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 367,514 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.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd, Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2150/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA

Section 147

…ded also reveal that, there has been no new material available with the Ld.AO which could justify the reopening of a concluded assessment beyond a period of 4 years. We place reliance on following decision in support: CIT vs Kelvinator India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) ACIT vs FIS Global Business Solutions India (P) Ltd. (2019) 262 Taxmann 369 (SC) Champ Energy Ventures Pvt.Ltd. vs ITO (2019) 102 taxmann.com 374 (Bom) ITO vs TechSpan India Pvt.Ltd., (2018) 92 taxmann.com 361 (SC) Respectfully following the ratio is laid down above decisions, we set aside and quash the notice dated 03/09/2014, seeking to re…

Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2082/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA

Section 147

M/S. Ansys Software Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2038/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(viia)

…being a satisfaction recorded by the Ld.AO of failure on behalf of assessee to truly and fully disclose all material facts, is bad in law. In support of his contention the Ld.AR placed reliance on following decisions: CIT vs Kelvinator India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) CIT vs Usha international Ltd. reported in 348 ITR 480 (Delhi full bench) Page 8 of 15 Dishman Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs DCIT reported in 346 ITR 328 (Guj) 14. On the contrary the Ld.Sr.DR submitted that the reassessment notice the present case is valid and that the disallowances made by the Ld.AO could not have been allowed as deduction. He p…

M/S. Ansys Software Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2037/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(viia)

M/S. Ansys Software Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2036/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(viia)

The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Kotarki Constructions Pvt Ltd

WA/842/2018HC Karnataka30 Mar 2021

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,J.M.KHAZI

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 18ISection 4Section 80

…the Act and held that the reason recorded for re- opening was liable to be quashed. 8. The learned Single Judge placed reliance of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., [(2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC)] and the judgment of the Mumbai High Court in the case of Sitara Diamond Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others [(2012) 345 ITR 91]. 9. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the Revenue has preferred this appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri.Sanmathi E.I., contended the learne…

District Co-Operative Central Bank Limited, Bidar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Gulbarga

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 551/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(viia)

Pr.Commissioner vs. M/S Esteem Classic

ITA/842/2018HC Karnataka22 Mar 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 18ISection 4Section 80

M/S Nxp India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commmissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 847/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…dal Photo Films Ltd vs Deputy CIT (1988) 234 ITR 170 (Delhi High 6. Court) Page 6 of 11 Reopening of assessment on a mere change of opinion is invalid Techspan India Pvt Ltd v ITO (2006) 283 ITR 212 (Delhi 7. High Court) CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 (Supreme 8. Court) Legato System (India) Pvt Ltd vs DCIT (2010) (187 Taxman 9. 294) (Delhi High Court) CIT Vs Ramakrishna Hegde (326 ITR 347) (2010) (Karnataka 10. High Court) Reassessment based on audit objection is void ab initio Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society vs CIT (119 ITR 996) (Supreme 11. Court) Raj Ratna Metal Industries Ltd vs ACIT…

M/S J P Distilleries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 51/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 28

…wn in the following decisions that, on a mere change in opinion the provisions of section 147 of the act could not have been invoked. i) Rallies India Ltd Vs. ACIT & Another (2010) 323 ITR 54 (Bom) ii) CIT V. (I) Kelvinator of India Ltd (ii) Eicher Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) iii) Asian Paints Ltd V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Another (2009) 223 CTR 141 (Bom) iv) CIT V. Younus Kunju (1997) 228 ITR 147 (Kerala) Page 3 of 11 10. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT V. Dhirendra Hansraj Singh, S.L.P…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Sky Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 5252/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleबनाम/ The Asst. Commissioner M/S Tata Sky Ltd., Of Income Tax, 3Rd Floor, C1, Wadia Vs. Circle – 16 (1), International Centre, Room No. 439, 4Th Floor, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400025 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcs9294M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Shri Vijay Kumar Menon, Dr Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर Shri J.D. Mistri, Ar से/Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of 09/02/2021 Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of 15/02/2021 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -4, M/S Tata Sky Ltd. Mumbai, Passed U/S. 143 (3) R.W.S. 147 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147

…essment proceedings and now sought to be disturbed in the second reassessment, amounts to a clear change of opinion and devoid of consistency. The appellant placed its reliance on the judgement of Non'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator India Limited (320 ITR 561), wherein it was held that change of opinion is not permitted with the purview of Section 147 and on the facts of this matter, and this was a clear change of opinion. The appellant submitted that A.Y. 2008-09 is the only year in which the claim of depreciation on computer software was reduced from 60% to 25% whereas in the later years also, depre…

R.S. Shares & Securities Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 8031/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e reasonable In other words, it must be based on reasons which are relevant and material. The existence of tangible and relevant material is a precondition for assuming jurisdiction, as has been held in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) and ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC). Hence, in this case the proceedings have been initiated on the basis of no material much less any tangible and, relevant material and as such reasons record do not constitute valid reason to believe for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. It is a case of…

Shri. G. Mallikarjuna Naidu, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 78/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V Sridhar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT

Section 129Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 2Section 234A

…r the trucks at 30%. On merits, we note that, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition of depreciation disallowed by the Ld.AO 14. At this juncture we place reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd., reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 wherein Hon’ble court held initiation of Page 7 of 9 reassessment proceedings to be not proper, when no tangible material came to the possession of the Ld.AO. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs Hardware Trading & Co. reported in 248 ITR 673 has followed the said ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd…

Gaurang Products Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-11(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 5196/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…d 16.09.2020 and M/s. AST Pipes P. Ltd., in ITA.No.8312/Del./2019 Dated 27.10.2020. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 9 ITA.No.5196/Del./2019 M/s. Gaurang Products Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. case of CIT vs., Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC) on the proposition that “on mere change of Opinion re- assessment cannot be done and as such it should be quashed.” He has further submitted that in the present case original assessment was completed under section 143(3) Dated 14.12.2011 and the action under section 147 have been initiated after expiry of 04 years from the end of the relevan…

Mrf Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Ltu 2(I/C), Chennai

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

ITA 1175/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1175/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Mrf Limited, The Acit, New No.114, Greams Road, V. Large Tax Payer Unit-2(I/C), Chennai – 600 006. Chennai. Pan: Aaacm4154G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Suresh Periasamy,Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.12.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2021

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy,JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80JSection 8O

…appreciated that addition made in the reassessment has arisen only due to change of opinion and not on account of concealment of any particulars by the Appellant; hence the order is to be quashed as being without jurisdiction. CIT Vs.Kelvinator of India Ltd- 320 ITR 561 (SC). 2.3. The appellant relies on the decision of ITAT in Assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2008-09 in ITA no-641/2018, wherein the ITAT has held that the reopening was invalid as there was no failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment, 3. The Commissioner of Income tax (…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Lodha Construction (Dombivali), Mumbai

ITA 7041/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dcit, Central Circle-7(3) M/S Lodha Contruction Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. (Dombivali),216, Aayakar Bhavan, Shah & Nahar M.K. Road, Industrial Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Off. Dr.E.Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Pan No. Aabfl3409M (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Brajendra Kumar, D.R Revenue By : Ms. Aarti Sathe, A.R Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021

For Appellant: Shri Brajendra Kumar, D.RFor Respondent: Ms. Aarti Sathe, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 80Section 801Section 80I

…reopened its concluded assessment, which as noticed by us hereinabove in absence of any fresh tangible material is not permitted under law. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). In the said case it was observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that after 1st April, 1989, A.O has power to reopen the assessment under s. 147 provided he 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. Upholding the view taken by the High Cour…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 3768/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 143(3)Section 148

…ther” as that would amount to “giving a premium to an authority exercising quasi-judicial function to take benefit of its own wrong”. Further, upholding this decision of the Delhi High Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) observed that the power to reopen assessments w e f 1/04/1989 was much wider and also observed, inter alia, “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 on the basis of “mere change o…

Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Jaipur vs. M/S Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust, Jaipur

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 960/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Add.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 960/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2008-09 cuke The ITO, (Exemption), M/s Apollo Animal Medical Vs. Ward-1, Group Trust, Jaipur. 299, Himmat Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABTA 0145 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@CO. No. 05/JP/2020 (Arising out of ITA No. 960/JP/2018) fu/kZkj.k…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (Ltu), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Vijaya Bank, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1832/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(viia)

…le material in the possession of AO at the time of recording of reasons for initiating proceedings u/s.147 of the Act., the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme ITA Nos.1832 and 1837/Bang/2018 Page 19 of 22 Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC), has to be applied. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that for reopening of the assessment, the AO should have in its 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 indi…

Jagdish U. Thackersay, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5045/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 54F

…view than taken by the predecessor Assessing Officer and wants to take action u/s 147, such action cannot be sustained because the view taken by the subsequent officer is nothing but a change of opinion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while approving reported in 320 ITR 561, the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1, observed that : “After the Amending Act, 1989, Section 147 reads as under: Income escaping assessment. 147. If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may…