CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -22(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Sanjay Sunil Bajaj, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

…above reply of the assessee and made a disallowance of Rs.5,11,23,710/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) by following the decision in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), CIT v. Foramer France (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC), MJ Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. DCIT (2008) 297 ITR 119 (Bom), Carlton Overseas P. Ltd. v. ITO (2009) 318 ITR 295 (Del) held that : “I have perused the details filed by the appellant. The AO during the original assessment proceedings had called for the details of the labour charges paid and the rea…

Income Tax 11(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Sonu Synthetic Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer – M/S. Sonu Synthetics 11(2)(3), Ltd., Room No.425, 131/B, Sanjay Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan, No.6, Vs. M.K. Road, Mittal Indl. Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aadcs5012J (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/M/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5291/M/2017) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer – M/S. Sonu Synthetics 11(2)(3), Ltd., Room No.425, 131/B, Sanjay Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan, No.6, Vs. M.K. Road, Mittal Indl. Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aadcs5012J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.10.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Above Titled Appeal By The Revenue & Cross Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated

…The reopening of the assessment is only on the basis of the material which was already on record at the time of the original assessment and which has been scrutinized before passing the assessment order. The decision in case of CIT v/s Kelvinator of India Ltd 320 ITR 561 would be relevant to the present issue. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that the AO has no power to review earlier assessment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that the AO has power to reopen provided there is a tangible material to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income from the assessment. Unless a t…

Twin Earth Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT RG 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Twin Earth Dy.Cit, Securities P. Ltd., Range - 4(2)(1), 301/302 Prime Plaza, Room No.642, Vs. 38-A, S.V. Road, 6Th Floor, Santacruz (West), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 054 M.K. Road, Pan: Aabct3066F Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K. Gopal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2020 O R D E R

…the Appellant. The ld AR contended that re-opening is just a change of opinion based on the same facts which is not permissible under the Act. Ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions to defend is arguments: i. CIT vsKelvinator of India Ltd- [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC)- Supreme Court ii. CIT vs. Usha International Ltd.-[2012] 348 ITR 485 (Delhi)- Delhi High Court (Full Bench). 10. The ld. AR also argued that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and the entire reassessment proceedings are without jurisdiction since there was no tangible/fresh material in 7 M/s. Twin Earth Securities P. Ltd. possession of th…

Eskays Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-2010

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Eskays Constructions The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, 16Th Floor, B-Wing Central Circle 8(4), Mittal Tower-210, Vs. Room No. 658, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai - 400021 M.K. Road, Pan: Aaace1223E Mumbai – 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Tiwari/Ms. Hetal Laghave (Ars) Revenue By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh/Mohd. Rizwan (Drs) Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/08/2020

…nt order was passed on 16.12.2011. There was no fresh evidence/material with the AO to issue notice u/s 148 read with 147 of the Act. The Ld. counsel placing reliance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC), submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the assessment order passed contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. The Ld. counsel accordingly submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. On facts, the Ld. counsel submitted that since assessee was not engaged in the business o…

Tilaknagar Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-

…the notices issued by him, he had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Act after changing his opinion. The Ld. counsel placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of State Bank Of India vs. ACIT (2019) 411 ITR 664, submitted that since the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Court in the aforesaid cases, the same is liable to be set aside. Assessment Year: 2009-10 6. The Ld. counsel invite…

Aditya Birla Telecom Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 5(1), Mumbai

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 2350/Mum/2013 (निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2007-08) Vodafone Idea Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of (Successor To Aditya Birla Telecom Income Tax Limited) Aayaker Bhavan, M.K. Road, बिाम/ 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Churchgate, Mumbai Vs. Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacb2100P अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Michael Jerald, Sr.Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2020 आदेश / O R D E R

…he Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon mere change of opinion." 15. This decision in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) has now been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) with the following observations: "We must keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and Vodafone Idea Limited ; AY 07-08 power to re-assess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to re- assess. But re-assessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of "chang…