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 366,470 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.

Guljar, Saharanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Saharanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3797/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv [through VC]For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…ljar Vs ITO recording reasons, and has not established any co-relation/nexus between the material and opinion formed. The ld AR relied on the several decisions of ITAT and on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC) and the decision in the case of CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd. 354 ITR 536 (Del) and Pr. CIT vs. G&G Pharma India Limited in ITA No. 545/2015 wherein it has been held that the reason to believe should be based on some tangible material and the same should have the live nexus that income has escaped assessment. 9. It is further submitted that i…

Arjun Oil Traders, Surat vs. ACIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari

ITA 147/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.147/Srt/2024

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 250

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.147/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Arjun Oil Traders (Hybrid hearing) बनाम / Vs. 4, Anand Bazar, Station Road, Billimora-396321 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAEFA8330R (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Appellant by राजस्व की ओर से /Respondent by सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement ACIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-DR 14/08/2025 12…

Mr. Ravinder Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1579/DEL/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1579/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2006-07 बनाम Mr. Ravinder Kumar Jain, Dcit, H 82, South Extension, Part-1, Vs. Central Circle 07, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aalpj7172P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…view/revisit of own order dated 28.12.2007 which is impermissible under the law. Under the law, the AO has no power to review/revisit his own order in fresh assessment proceedings. 3 RAVINDER KUMAR JAIN - 256 ITR 1 (Del), CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. - 320 ITR 561 (SC), CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. Ld. Counsel submitted that after completion of original assessment, the then AO had levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) vide order dated 03.03.2014 and in that very penalty order, even the then AO had not levied penalty in relation to amount of Rs.58,85,666/- which itself shows that the amount of…

Monotech Systems Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-4(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1021/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. J. Prabhakar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T

Section 147Section 234BSection 36Section 37(1)Section 45

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार "ग"र, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम# BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:1021/Chny/2025 "नधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Monotech Systems Limited, DCIT, Third Floor, City Centre, vs. Corporate Circle -4(1), 39, Thirumalai Pillai Road, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [PAN:AABCM-8821-D] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent) अपीलाथ& क) ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. J. Prabhakar, F.C.A. '(यथ& क) ओर…

Manoj Kumar Dugar, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Erode

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2170/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Erode), AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ut any direct nexus to the assessee. The reasons recorded do not allege failure on the part of the assessee, which is a sine qua non for reopening beyond four years. Reliance was placed on several judicial precedents including CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [320 ITR 561 (SC)], Foramer France v. CIT [264 ITR 566 (SC)] and jurisdictional High Court decisions reported in 430 ITR 515 (Mad), 455 ITR 292 (Mad) and 476 ITR 193 Mad) holding that reassessment beyond four years is bad in law when there is no failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perus…

Addl.CIT, New Delhi vs. Makemytrip (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, Cross Objections of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5384/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं. 5384 & 5385/िद"ी/2017(िन.व. 2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, & Shri Somil AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 40

…rmissible under law. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on following decisions: - (i) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del); (ii) Wel Intertrade (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, 308 ITR 22 (Del); & (iii) CIT vs. Kelvinator Of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC). 7. Per contra, the ld. DR opposing Cross Objections filed written submissions, the same are reproduced herein below: “1. Most respectfully it is submitted that Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that certain income has escaped assessment. 2. It…

Hitesh Kumar Prithviraj Kawad, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non-Corporten Circle-4(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 352/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. C.I.T

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)Section 54F

…ssessment order passed by the AO as invalid. In support of the legal contention challenging the validity of the re-assessment proceedings, ld.AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited reported in 320 ITR 561. 11. Further, ld.AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Tanmac India v DCIT [2017] 78 taxmann.com 155 (Madras) where in the Assessing Officer allowed the deduction to the assessee firm which paid certain amount to a partner who retired from the firm and claimed deduction in respect of he amount so paid, but late…

Uday Punj, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(1), Delhi

In the result, the reassessment proceedings initiated in this case is bad in law

ITA 3087/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Uday Punj, Vs. Dcit, Circle 19 (1), Chimes, New Delhi. 55, Sultanpur Farms, New Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaapp1309F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rahul Khare, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Order : 30.10.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 18.03.2025 For Assessment Year 2013-14 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Learned Cit-A Erred In Fact & In Law In Confirming The Reopening Of The Case U/S 147/148 Without Appreciating The Facts Which Is Not Only Bad In Law But Also Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 73

…him during the course of assessment proceedings. Such actions of the AO would be hit by the judicial bar of “change of opinion". Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). 4. In furtherance thereto, it is also respectfully submitted that once a query on an issue has been raised by the AO during the course of the scrutiny assessment, which was duly responded / replied to by the Assessee, failure of the AO to not discuss the same in the assessment order would not validate assumption of jurisdiction under sectio…

Vertex Buildwell Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 26(2), C R Building, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2064/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2064/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2012-13] Vertex Buildwell Vs. The I.T.O. B-191, Ground Floor Ward – 26(2) Yojna Vihar, Anand Vihar New Delhi East Delhi, Delhi PAN: AACCV 6035 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Satyajeet Goyal, CA Department By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, AM :- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT…

Balachandra Builders Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 989/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 989/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 V. Balchandra Builders Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of No.10 Venkataratnam Nagar, Adyar, Income Tax, Chennai- 600 020. Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai. [Pan: Aaacb6727A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.N.Arjun Raj, Advocate, : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 28.07.2025 : घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…sh evidence or tangible material obtained subsequent to the original assessment proceedings. Rather, the reopening appears to be a reappraisal of facts already on record. 9. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 187 Taxman 312/320 ITR 561 (SC) has categorically held that reopening of assessment based on a mere change of opinion is not permissible. It has also been reiterated by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Indian Syntans Investments Pvt. Ltd. (Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Indian Syntans Investments Pvt Ltd. [2025] 176 taxmann.com 22 (Madras)[19-06- 2025]) t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Somani Services Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 2220/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 250

…pt income which is as under :- ………” It was the submission that there was no question of “change of opinion” by the subsequent AO as no initial opinion was formed by the first round AO. It was the submission that the case of M/s Kelvinator of India reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC), was clearly distinguishable since in this case there was no visible enquiry conducted by the AO or even any mention that the case was selected for scrutiny for verifying share capital premia. It was the submission in that both the cases there was mention that the initial information was actually received from the Investigation Wing but ther…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Somani Services Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 2219/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 250

L.H Sugar Factories Ltd., Pilibhit vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 194/LKW/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ithout independent application of mind and without absence of satisfaction of the Assessing Officer leading to independent belief of the Assessing Officer; were invalid. The learned A.R. for the assessee also drew support from CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 228 CTR 488 (SC) for the proposition that reassessment proceedings based on “change of opinion” were invalid and that reasons recorded must have a live link with the formation of belief. (D.3) On merits, learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that the addition has been made on the basis of lack of understanding of Keyman Insurance Policies. Under this poli…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Jalandhar, Civil Lines vs. Sh. Barjesh Singhal, Modern Colony

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 363/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None (Written submission)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…f the Act on 15.10.2018. Hence, the re-opening of the assessment subsequently by the Assessing Officer is clearly falls as change of opinion and the same is not allowable as per the decision of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of CIT (vs) Kelvinator India Ltd. (320 ITR 561).” 13. Thereafter, he as further observed in para 4.5 and 4.6 as follows: 11 I.T.A. No. 363/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 “4.5 The above submission of the appellant has been carefully considered. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 15.10.2018. Subsequently, the assessmen…

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 246/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 250

…d position of law that reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 cannot be initiated on mere suspicion or change of opinion, but must be supported by tangible and credible material. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 187 Taxman 312/320 ITR 561 (SC)categorically held that the concept of "change of opinion” must be distinguished from “reason to believe,” and that the latter must be founded on tangible material, not on mere suspicion. The relevant extracts are 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 (…

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 245/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 250

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 244/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 250

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 243/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 250

Zahir Hussain, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Cir-9(5), Chennai

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

ITA 52/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.52/Chny/2019 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Abitha Banu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar

Section 143(3)Section 68

…he escapement was by reason of failure on the part of assessee, while reopening of assessment beyond 4 years. Therefore, in our view it is a case of change of opinion and as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [(2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) is bad in law. The Division Bench of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2009] 178 Taxman 409/[2008] 305 ITR 339 (Mad.), has also held that when a notice u/s. Zahir Hussain :- 8 -: 148 of the Act, is without jurisdiction, especially in cases beyond four years, where there is no failure on…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.901/DEL/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Maruti Suzuki India Limited, vs, DCIT, Circle 16 (1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070. (PAN : AAACM0829Q) DCIT, Circle 16 (1), vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, New Delhi. Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070. (PAN : AAACM0829Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate…