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)

Krythium Solutions P.Ltd, Kochi vs. The ACIT, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 162/COCH/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Raja Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 109ASection 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…an opinion was formed qua the claim made under Section 10B, which was changed while initiating the re-assessment proceedings. It is well settled that a mere 'change of opinion' cannot be the basis of re-assessment. (Refer: CIT v. Kelvinator of India - (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). Alternatively, it is submitted that when the approval under the STPI Scheme was never been disputed and the claim under Section 10B was ITA Nos.161-164/Coch/2020 5 M/s.Krythium Solutions Pvt.Ltd. accepted in the initial years after completion of scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, the rejection of the entire claim in re-as…

Krythium Solutions P.Ltd, Kochi vs. The ACIT, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 161/COCH/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jul 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Raja Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 109ASection 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…an opinion was formed qua the claim made under Section 10B, which was changed while initiating the re-assessment proceedings. It is well settled that a mere 'change of opinion' cannot be the basis of re-assessment. (Refer: CIT v. Kelvinator of India - (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). Alternatively, it is submitted that when the approval under the STPI Scheme was never been disputed and the claim under Section 10B was ITA Nos.161-164/Coch/2020 5 M/s.Krythium Solutions Pvt.Ltd. accepted in the initial years after completion of scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, the rejection of the entire claim in re-as…

Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T., Cent.Cir.10(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2344/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income D-2, Medley Houses, 16Th Road, Tax-10(2)(2), Vs. Midc Area, Andheri (East), Mumbai Mumbai – 400 093 Pan – Aaacm2764J (Appellant) (Respondent) Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, D-2, Medley House, 16Th Road, Central Circle – 44, Vs. Midc Area, Andheri (East), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai Mumbai Pan – Aaacm2764J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jothwani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. H.N. Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147

…are afraid that such a substitution of a view of a successor A.O cannot form a justifiable basis for reopening the case of an assessee. In fact, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its landmark judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) observing, that merely on the basis of a „change of opinion‟ the case of an assessee cannot be reopened, had held as under:- “On going through the changes, quoted above, made to s. 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, reopening could be done under above two conditions and fulfilment of the said cond…

Harshvardhan Constructions, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 5225/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.C Tiwari, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…the ld. A.R on the judgment of the Hon‘ble High Court of Bombay in the case of GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. Vs. Ms. Ramapriya Raghavan, ACIT & Ors. (2015) 371 ITR 225 (Bom) and that of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). Relying on the said judicial pronouncements, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that an assessment cannot be reopened on a mere ‗change of opinion‘. It was further submitted by the ld. A.R that now when the assessee in course of verification of its claim for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, had furnished the requisite details/documents as we…

ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Harshvardhan Constructions, Mumbai

ITA 5912/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.C Tiwari, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…the ld. A.R on the judgment of the Hon‘ble High Court of Bombay in the case of GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. Vs. Ms. Ramapriya Raghavan, ACIT & Ors. (2015) 371 ITR 225 (Bom) and that of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). Relying on the said judicial pronouncements, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that an assessment cannot be reopened on a mere ‗change of opinion‘. It was further submitted by the ld. A.R that now when the assessee in course of verification of its claim for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, had furnished the requisite details/documents as we…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 3, Thane vs. The Thane Bharat Sahakari Bank Ltd, Thane

ITA 6639/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Inder Solanki

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80A(5)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

…ther, he observed, the Assessing Officer has not formed his reason to belief on the basis of any new tangible information for re–opening the assessment. Accordingly, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kelvinator of India v/s CIT, [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC), he held that re–opening of assessment under section 147 of the Act is invalid. Insofar as the merits of various disallowances are concerned, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that amortization of premium paid on HTM securities and the depreciation on shifting of AFS securities to HTM category is untenable as similar disallowance made…

Paradeep Parivahan Pvt. Ltd., Jagatsinghpur vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 460/CTK/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37

…without any new tangible materials, the AO has no valid jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd. (2010) 310 ITR 561 (SC). 7. Replying to above, ld DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment u/s.147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act on the ground that the amount of donation and subscription has been considered by the AO during the original assessment, therefore, the AO was right in reopening the assessment. Ld D.R. furth…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. M/S. K V Mohana Rao and Co Privite Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 539/VIZ/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.U.Mini Chandran, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 148

…relates to earlier year and allowable in the current year is amounting to change of opinion and is not permissible according to law. For that he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Kelvinator of India Ltd., [(2010) 320 ITR 561]. So far as merits of the case is concerned, ld. counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Andhra Sugars Ltd., [(2014) 367 ITR 195]. The ld. CIT(A) by considering the submissions of the assessee quashed the notice issued by the Assessing Officer on the ground that it is cle…

The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-4, Bangalore vs. M/S Mphasis Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3418/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CA

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40

…nion and are therefore invalid in the absence of any tangible material coming into possession of the AO, after conclusion of original assessment proceedings and in the light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC). (2) The assessee also submitted that the payments in question are not chargeable to tax in India and therefore there was no requirement of deduction of tax at source u/s. 195 of the Act and consequently there cannot be any disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. (3) Without prejudice to the above submissions, the assessee submitted that it…

American Express Travel Related Services Company Inc., Usa vs. ADIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5941/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2020AY 2003-04

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

…not be permitted to review his earlier assessment order in the garb of reassessment. Also the reassessment jurisdiction cannot be invoked by a mere change of opinion. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in [2010] 320 ITR 561 has held that ‘reasons to believe’ cannot comprehend a mere change of opinion which would only amount to an impermissible review. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that: “…Therefore, post-1-4-1989, power to re-open is much wider. However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words “reason to believe” failing which, we are afraid, Secti…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sri. K.Srikanth, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1324/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…d time limit for issuing notice u/s 143(2) was 12 months from the end of the month in which return of income was filed by the assessee. The learned CIT-DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.(2010) 320 ITR 561(SC), and submitted that rigors of Sec.147 was rightly applied by the AO. It was submitted by ITA No.307/Chny/2010 & ITA Nos.1015 & 1016/Chny/2012 & :- 45 -: learned CIT-DR that there were tangible material before the AO to come to conclusion that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and the reasons for reopening of concluded asse…

Sri K.Srikanth, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1016/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…d time limit for issuing notice u/s 143(2) was 12 months from the end of the month in which return of income was filed by the assessee. The learned CIT-DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.(2010) 320 ITR 561(SC), and submitted that rigors of Sec.147 was rightly applied by the AO. It was submitted by ITA No.307/Chny/2010 & ITA Nos.1015 & 1016/Chny/2012 & :- 45 -: learned CIT-DR that there were tangible material before the AO to come to conclusion that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and the reasons for reopening of concluded asse…

Sri K.Srikanth, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1015/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…d time limit for issuing notice u/s 143(2) was 12 months from the end of the month in which return of income was filed by the assessee. The learned CIT-DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.(2010) 320 ITR 561(SC), and submitted that rigors of Sec.147 was rightly applied by the AO. It was submitted by ITA No.307/Chny/2010 & ITA Nos.1015 & 1016/Chny/2012 & :- 45 -: learned CIT-DR that there were tangible material before the AO to come to conclusion that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and the reasons for reopening of concluded asse…

Shri K.Srikanth, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 307/CHNY/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…d time limit for issuing notice u/s 143(2) was 12 months from the end of the month in which return of income was filed by the assessee. The learned CIT-DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.(2010) 320 ITR 561(SC), and submitted that rigors of Sec.147 was rightly applied by the AO. It was submitted by ITA No.307/Chny/2010 & ITA Nos.1015 & 1016/Chny/2012 & :- 45 -: learned CIT-DR that there were tangible material before the AO to come to conclusion that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and the reasons for reopening of concluded asse…

M/S. Ganpat Pannalal, Harda vs. ITO-1 Harda, Harda

Appeal is allowed

ITA 756/IND/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 May 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 80Section 80I

…all the material with' regard to particular issue is before the AD and he chooses not to deal with the same, it cannot be said that he had not applied his mind to all the material before him. The appellant relies on the judgment in CIT Vs Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 561 (SC)(FB) to contend that on a mere change of opinion, reopening cannot be done. It is pertinent to note that in original assessment proceedings, the fact that no salary was given to partners and details of deduction claimed by assessee u/s 80IB(l1A) was on record. The explanation filed before AD on 23.03.2011 (PB 54-55) was before the reassessmen…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi vs. M/S. Mitsu Limited, Daman

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3510/AHD/2016[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 May 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

Section 143

…td. [2007] 291 ITR 500 Page 82 of 83 Mitsu Ltd. v. ACIT- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,CO-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/AHD/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 (SC) and also for the decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561/187 Taxman 312(SC) held that where no new material come to notice of the AO after completion of assessment and assessment has been reopened on the basis of same material is not permissible. We also notice that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Appeal No. 800 of 2013 vide order dated 16.07.2016 in appellant`s own case has treated the non-compe…

M/S. Mitsu Private Limited, Vapi vs. The ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1000/AHD/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 May 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

Section 143

…td. [2007] 291 ITR 500 Page 82 of 83 Mitsu Ltd. v. ACIT- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,CO-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/AHD/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 (SC) and also for the decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561/187 Taxman 312(SC) held that where no new material come to notice of the AO after completion of assessment and assessment has been reopened on the basis of same material is not permissible. We also notice that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Appeal No. 800 of 2013 vide order dated 16.07.2016 in appellant`s own case has treated the non-compe…

S Harinath Chowdary, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 719/HYD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 May 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Sh. Nilanjan Dey, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 50C

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘B-SMC’ BENCH : Hyderabad Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member ITA No. 719/Hyd./2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri S. Harinath Chowdary vs. ITO, Ward 8(1) C/o P.Murali & Co., Hyderabad Chartered Accountants 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda Hyderabad 500 082 PAN: AGQPS1831H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao, A.R. For Revenue: Sh. Nilanjan Dey, D.R. Date of Hearing : 04/02/2020 Date of Pronouncement : 01/05 /2020 O R D E R This is assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2007-08 against the order of Ld.CIT(A)-6, Hyderabad dated 25.03.2019. 2. B…

Shri Arpit Khairari, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-2, Jaipur

ITA 613/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 613/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2009-10 Cuke Shri Arpit Khairari The Ito Vs. 116/1, Hari Marg, Civil Lines Ward- 2(2) Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Bavpk 5368 P Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri R.S. Poonia, Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms.Chanchal Meena, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 17/02/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13 /03/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 01-02-2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds. ‘’1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & Fact In Confirming Issuance Of Notice Uu147/148 By The Ao Without Having Jurisdiction, Kindly Quash The Entire Proceedings Which Initiated Without Jurisdiction.

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Chanchal Meena, JCIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50CSection 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH ‘B’, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k Before : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, JM & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 613/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10 cuke Shri Arpit Khairari The ITO Vs. 116/1, Hari Marg, Civil Lines Ward- 2(2) Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@ PAN/GIR No.: BAVPK 5368 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri R.S. Poonia, Advocate jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Ms.Chanchal Meena,…

M/S. Akshaya Souharda Credit Co-Operative Limited, Chikkaballapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1, Chikkaballapur

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

ITA 2574/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

…t is possibly reopened within a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment years, the reassessment would be bad in law if it is on a mere change of opinion. The learned AR relied on the following decisions:- (i) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC) (ii) ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd. 348 ITR 299 5.1 The learned AR further submitted that another ground on which the reopening is bad in law is that the so called formation of belief is not based on any external source. It is well settled that in order to reopen the assessment u/s 143(3), the information that led to the bel…

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.

Krythium Solutions P.Ltd, Kochi vs. The ACIT, Kochi

Krythium Solutions P.Ltd, Kochi vs. The ACIT, Kochi

Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T., Cent.Cir.10(2)(2), Mumbai

Harshvardhan Constructions, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai

ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Harshvardhan Constructions, Mumbai

Asst CIT Cen Cir 3, Thane vs. The Thane Bharat Sahakari Bank Ltd, Thane

Paradeep Parivahan Pvt. Ltd., Jagatsinghpur vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. M/S. K V Mohana Rao and Co Privite Limited, Visakhapatnam

The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-4, Bangalore vs. M/S Mphasis Limited, Bangalore

American Express Travel Related Services Company Inc., Usa vs. ADIT, New Delhi

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sri. K.Srikanth, Chennai

Sri K.Srikanth, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Sri K.Srikanth, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Shri K.Srikanth, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

M/S. Ganpat Pannalal, Harda vs. ITO-1 Harda, Harda

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi vs. M/S. Mitsu Limited, Daman

M/S. Mitsu Private Limited, Vapi vs. The ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi

S Harinath Chowdary, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

Shri Arpit Khairari, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-2, Jaipur

M/S. Akshaya Souharda Credit Co-Operative Limited, Chikkaballapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1, Chikkaballapur