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)

Shri Sardar (Mehsana) Owners Association, Mehsana vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

ITA 308/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) (Through Virtual Court)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT/D.R

Section 148

…permissible under the Act The law is well settled that the proceedings u/s 147/148 cannot be initiated merely because there is change of opinion and there are no new facts for justifying initiation of re-assessment proceedings. [CITv. Kelvinator of India Ltd 320 ITR 561 (SC)] (k) Having regard to the aforesaid facts and there being illegality and infirmity in the matter, the procedure laid down by the Apex Court in the case of GKN Drive Shaft (India) Ltd. v ITO 359 ITR 191 (S.C) & others, should be followed before proceedings further in the matter. C. Pre-matured reference from the present A.O. (a) As may be v…

Mandovi Distilleries & Breweries Pvt Ltd., Pondicherry vs. DCIT Pondicherry Circle, Pondicherry

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

ITA 2839/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2839/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr.D.Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.G. Chandrababu, Sr.DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…- assessment was initiated within four years from the end of the Assessment Order. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal and relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India reported in [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 4. We heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant materials. The re-assessment made is related to the AY 2009-10. The AO completed the original assessment u/s.143(3) for this Assessment Year on 27.12.2011. For making the re-assessment, the AO issued a not…

M/S. Merck Life Science Pvt. Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/113/2016HC Karnataka14 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260ASection 80

…ssment Years and therefore, the proviso to Section 147 of the Act was clearly applicable to the fact situation of the case. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in 'CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD', 320 ITR 561 and 'ACIT VS. ICICI SECURITIES PRIMARY DEALERSHIP LTD., 348 ITR 299. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that assessment for the Assessment Year 1997-98 was reopened under Section 148 of the Act on the basis of information regarding wrong claim 8 made by the assessee available and detected in the cours…

M/S. Merck Life Science Pvt. Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/112/2016HC Karnataka14 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260ASection 80

…ssment Years and therefore, the proviso to Section 147 of the Act was clearly applicable to the fact situation of the case. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in 'CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD', 320 ITR 561 and 'ACIT VS. ICICI SECURITIES PRIMARY DEALERSHIP LTD., 348 ITR 299. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that assessment for the Assessment Year 1997-98 was reopened under Section 148 of the Act on the basis of information regarding wrong claim 8 made by the assessee available and detected in the cours…

M/S. Ue Development India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2381/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)

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

…Ltd. Vs. JCIT 64 Taxman.com 68 (Kar) (ii) CIT Vs. Hewlett Packard Digital Global Soft Ltd. in ITA 406 & 407 of 2007 dt.19.09.2011 (Karnataka H.C.) (iii) CIT Vs. Hewlett Packard Digital Global Soft Ltd. 380 ITR 386 (Kar). (iv) CIT Vs. ;Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC( (v) CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 (Del) (vi) CIT Vs. Modipon Ltd. in ITA No.533 of 2011 Dt.21.03.2011 (Delhi H C) (vii) Madhukar Khosla Vs. ACIT 367 ITR 165 (Del) (viii) CIT Vs. Foramer France 264 ITR 566 (SC) (ix) CIT Vs. Tarajan Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. 236 ITR 477 (SC) (x) Fibres & Fabrics International (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 48 ITR (T)4…

Rajlaxmi Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Surat

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2730/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court Hearing) Vs Rajlaxmi Polymers Pvt Ltd, Income Tax Officer, 5024,World Trade Centre, Ward -2 (1)(1), Near Udhna Darwaja, Surat, Ring Road, Surat-395002 Pan : Aabcr 1210 M Assessee Revenue Assessee By Sh. Sapnesh Sheth Ca/Ar Revenue By Ms. Anupma Singla Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 17/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2020

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)Section 30Section 37(1)

…tly came into his possession, thus notice under section 148 cannot be issued on the basis of mere change of opinion. In support of his submission the learned of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kelvinator of India Ltd (320 ITR 561 SC). 7. In alternative submission the learned AR of the assessee submits that during the reassessment proceeding the assessee vide its letter dated 28th July 2015 raised objection against the reopening, on the ground that the reopening is proposed to be done on the basis of ‘Audit objection’ and that the relevant information relating to sales pr…

ACIT, Central Circle - 4(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Grd Commodities Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of assessee are allowed

ITA 2277/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] It(Ss)A Nos.120 To123/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2012-13

Section 132Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…1 IT(SS)A Nos.120-123/Kol/2018 & C.O. Nos. 123 to 126/Kol/2018 GRD Commodities Ltd., AYs- 2009-10 to 2012-13 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")"ी पी. एम.जगताप,उपा"य" एवं "ी ए.ट". वक!,"या"यक सद$य) [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President (KZ) &Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] IT(SS)A Nos.120 to123/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 to 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s. G R D Commodities Ltd. Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata. (PAN: AACCG1217C) Appellant Respondent & C.O. Nos. 123 to 126/Kol/2018 In IT(SS)A Nos.120 to 123/Kol/2018 Assessme…

The Tata Power Co.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn – subject to the observation above

ITA 665/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.665/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Tata Power Company बिधम/ Acit, Circle 2(3)(1) Ltd. Room No.552, Aayakar Vs. Corporate Centre, Block B, Bhavan, Maharshi Karve 5Th Floor, 34, Sant Tukaram Road, Mumbai-400020. Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai-400009. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact0054A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Nyrica Trikannd Revenue By: Shri Vijay Kumar P. Menon (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.11.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-06 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] & Pertains To A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds.:-

For Appellant: Ms. Nyrica TrikanndFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar P. Menon (DR)

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI N. K. PRADHAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.665/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Tata Power Company बिधम/ ACIT, Circle 2(3)(1) Ltd. Room No.552, Aayakar Vs. Corporate Centre, Block B, Bhavan, Maharshi Karve 5th Floor, 34, Sant Tukaram Road, Mumbai-400020. Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai-400009. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACT0054A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Ms. Nyrica Trikannd Revenue by: Shri Vijay Kumar P. Menon (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 0…

DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5238/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…assessment and reopening was done merely on the basis of change of opinion of the AO on same set of facts which is not permissible in the law. Therefore, the CIT(A) relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 560 held that reopening is invalid and quashed the same. 16. As regards the revised return, the CIT(A) held that the section 147 has been incorporated in the Act for taxing the income which has escaped the assessment and not for giving benefit to an assessee. Therefore, the claim of the assessee that the sale of the said property be treated as null…

DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5237/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…assessment and reopening was done merely on the basis of change of opinion of the AO on same set of facts which is not permissible in the law. Therefore, the CIT(A) relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 560 held that reopening is invalid and quashed the same. 16. As regards the revised return, the CIT(A) held that the section 147 has been incorporated in the Act for taxing the income which has escaped the assessment and not for giving benefit to an assessee. Therefore, the claim of the assessee that the sale of the said property be treated as null…

Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 4736/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…assessment and reopening was done merely on the basis of change of opinion of the AO on same set of facts which is not permissible in the law. Therefore, the CIT(A) relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 560 held that reopening is invalid and quashed the same. 16. As regards the revised return, the CIT(A) held that the section 147 has been incorporated in the Act for taxing the income which has escaped the assessment and not for giving benefit to an assessee. Therefore, the claim of the assessee that the sale of the said property be treated as null…

M/S Heritage Educational Society, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh

ITA 1071/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudarshan, JCIT (Sr. DR)

Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…pinion regarding salary paid to trustees for which Id. AO had already accepted the assessee submissions. Reliance is placed on the following case laws/ judicial pronouncements: • Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Versus M/s Kelvinator of India Limited [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) • Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Versus M/s ITW India Ltd 2015] 377ITR 195 (PSnH) • Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010 (1) TM 11 ■ SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] • Mitsubishi Electric Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India And Others 2015] 377 ITR 266 (P&H) • jurisdictional High Court in the case o…

M/S Heritage Educational Society, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh

ITA 1070/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudarshan, JCIT (Sr. DR)

Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…pinion regarding salary paid to trustees for which Id. AO had already accepted the assessee submissions. Reliance is placed on the following case laws/ judicial pronouncements: • Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Versus M/s Kelvinator of India Limited [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) • Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Versus M/s ITW India Ltd 2015] 377ITR 195 (PSnH) • Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010 (1) TM 11 ■ SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] • Mitsubishi Electric Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India And Others 2015] 377 ITR 266 (P&H) • jurisdictional High Court in the case o…

M/S Heritage Educational Society, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh

ITA 1069/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudarshan, JCIT (Sr. DR)

Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…pinion regarding salary paid to trustees for which Id. AO had already accepted the assessee submissions. Reliance is placed on the following case laws/ judicial pronouncements: • Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Versus M/s Kelvinator of India Limited [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) • Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Versus M/s ITW India Ltd 2015] 377ITR 195 (PSnH) • Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010 (1) TM 11 ■ SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] • Mitsubishi Electric Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India And Others 2015] 377 ITR 266 (P&H) • jurisdictional High Court in the case o…

ITO 15 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Limbo Engineering P Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7277/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…n worse than case of change of opinion as the AO as per the reasons recorded, is not even aware that a scrutiny assessment has been made on an earlier occasion in the case of the assessee. The ld AR relied on the following decisions: Kelvinator of India Ltd – 320 ITR 561 (SC) Kelvinator of India Ltd – 256 ITR 1 (Del) TechSpan India P Ltd – 404 ITR 10 (SC) Century Textile & Industries Ltd – 99 taxmann.com 206 (SC) dismissing SLP against 99 taxmann.com 205 (Bom) Orient News Prints Ltd – 100 taxmann.com 69 (SC) dismissing SLP against 78 taxmann.com 108 (Guj) / 393 ITR 527 (Guj) ICICI Home Finance Co Ltd – 210 Taxman…

DCIT Central Circle-7(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Wellknown Polysters Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1388/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…n worse than case of change of opinion as the AO as per the reasons recorded, is not even aware that a scrutiny assessment has been made on an earlier occasion in the case of the assessee. The ld AR relied on the following decisions: Kelvinator of India Ltd – 320 ITR 561 (SC) Kelvinator of India Ltd – 256 ITR 1 (Del) TechSpan India P Ltd – 404 ITR 10 (SC) Century Textile & Industries Ltd – 99 taxmann.com 206 (SC) dismissing SLP against 99 taxmann.com 205 (Bom) Orient News Prints Ltd – 100 taxmann.com 69 (SC) dismissing SLP against 78 taxmann.com 108 (Guj) / 393 ITR 527 (Guj) ICICI Home Finance Co Ltd – 210 Taxman…

ITO 15 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Limbo Engineering P Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7276/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…n worse than case of change of opinion as the AO as per the reasons recorded, is not even aware that a scrutiny assessment has been made on an earlier occasion in the case of the assessee. The ld AR relied on the following decisions: Kelvinator of India Ltd – 320 ITR 561 (SC) Kelvinator of India Ltd – 256 ITR 1 (Del) TechSpan India P Ltd – 404 ITR 10 (SC) Century Textile & Industries Ltd – 99 taxmann.com 206 (SC) dismissing SLP against 99 taxmann.com 205 (Bom) Orient News Prints Ltd – 100 taxmann.com 69 (SC) dismissing SLP against 78 taxmann.com 108 (Guj) / 393 ITR 527 (Guj) ICICI Home Finance Co Ltd – 210 Taxman…

M/S Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, Mangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 553/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." 6.3 Considering the above, the Apex Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561) (SC) observed and held in para 4 as under :- "4. On going through the changes, quoted above, made to Section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re-opening could be done under above two conditions and fulfillment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to make a back…

M/S.Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, Mangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 552/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." 6.3 Considering the above, the Apex Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561) (SC) observed and held in para 4 as under :- "4. On going through the changes, quoted above, made to Section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re-opening could be done under above two conditions and fulfillment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to make a back…

M/S Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 3321/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri N Venkatraman, K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra and Shri Muzaffar

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

…sequent decision rendered by the Tribunal against the assessee in assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07. Hence, it is a clear case of change of opinion and reopening is not permissible as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561. Accordingly, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the reopening is bad in law and accordingly, the impugned assessment order is liable to be quashed. IT(TP)A Nos.330/Bang/2015, 804/Bang/2016 356/Bang/2017, 739/Bang/2017 & 3321/Bang/2018 M/s. Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore Page 7 of 55 8. On the contrary, the ld. D.R. submitted that the reopenin…

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.

Shri Sardar (Mehsana) Owners Association, Mehsana vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

Mandovi Distilleries & Breweries Pvt Ltd., Pondicherry vs. DCIT Pondicherry Circle, Pondicherry

M/S. Merck Life Science Pvt. Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner

M/S. Merck Life Science Pvt. Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner

M/S. Ue Development India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(1), Bangalore

Rajlaxmi Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Surat

ACIT, Central Circle - 4(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Grd Commodities Ltd., Kolkata

The Tata Power Co.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi

M/S Heritage Educational Society, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh

M/S Heritage Educational Society, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh

M/S Heritage Educational Society, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh

ITO 15 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Limbo Engineering P Ltd., Mumbai

DCIT Central Circle-7(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Wellknown Polysters Ltd., Mumbai

ITO 15 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Limbo Engineering P Ltd., Mumbai

M/S Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, Mangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

M/S.Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, Mangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

M/S Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore