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 367,368 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 147Section 143(3)Section 148Section 142(1)Section 151Section 143(2)Section 68Section 139
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

kelvinatorfresh tangible materialmere change of opinionfirst proviso to section 147material facts necessary for assessmentfull and true disclosurechange of opinionbeyond four yearslive linktangible materialescapement of incomereason to believe

Judgments citing CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Central Electronics Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4102/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary[Assessment Year: 2006-07] The A.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Central Electronics Ltd Circle - 5(2) 781, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Delhi Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aaacc 1261 G [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2019

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 32(2)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2006-07] The A.C.I.T. Vs. M/s Central Electronics Ltd Circle - 5(2) 781, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Delhi Karol Bagh, New Delhi PAN: AAACC 1261 G [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 14.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 16.05.2019 Assessee by : Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA Revenue by : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income T…

The National Small Industries Corp Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2728/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2007-08 National Small Industries Corpn., Vs Acit, Circle 16(1), Nsic Bhavan, Okhla Indl. Estate, New Delhi. Phase-Iii, New Delhi. Pan: Aaact0686N

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…the learned AO verified all the necessary particulars at the time of original assessment, the reasons recorded by the learned AO amounts to change of opinion and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561, does not permissible under law. 7. Per contra, ld. DR submitted that inview of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V.S. Beedies P. Ltd., 237 ITR 13 (SC), reopening of the case on the basis of a factual error pointed out by the audit report is permissible under law. She drew our attention to the fact that out of total gra…

ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7377/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7325/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Tata Chemicals Limited The Deputy Commissioner Bombay House, Fort, Of Income Tax Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaact4059M Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7377/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) The Deputy Commissioner Of Tata Chemicals Limited Income Tax Bombay House, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12-02-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10-05-2019 Aadosa / O R D E R महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य/ Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80Section 80ISection 80M

…rther observed that there did not appear tangible material / reason to reopen the assessment proceedings by the AO in the facts of that case. Hon’ble Bombay High Court has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) and Hindustand Liver Ltd. Vs. Wadkar (R.B), ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.) and also Titanor Components Ltd. vs. ACIT (2012) 343 ITR 183 (Bom.) and held as under: “13. In the instant case, the notice under section 148 has not been issued after the expiry of four years, but within four years. Therefore, the assessee must have reason to believ…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7325/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7325/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Tata Chemicals Limited The Deputy Commissioner Bombay House, Fort, Of Income Tax Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaact4059M Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7377/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) The Deputy Commissioner Of Tata Chemicals Limited Income Tax Bombay House, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12-02-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10-05-2019 Aadosa / O R D E R महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य/ Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80Section 80ISection 80M

…rther observed that there did not appear tangible material / reason to reopen the assessment proceedings by the AO in the facts of that case. Hon’ble Bombay High Court has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) and Hindustand Liver Ltd. Vs. Wadkar (R.B), ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.) and also Titanor Components Ltd. vs. ACIT (2012) 343 ITR 183 (Bom.) and held as under: “13. In the instant case, the notice under section 148 has not been issued after the expiry of four years, but within four years. Therefore, the assessee must have reason to believ…

Sri Rabindra Nath Pradhan, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 490/CTK/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…u/s.148 of the Act as it amounts to change of opinion. To support his contention, ld A.R. filed a copy of decision of Hon’ble Supreme P a g e 2 | 7 ITA No. 490/CT K/ 2017 Asse ssment Year: 20 10- 201 1 Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.,320 ITR 561 (SC) . Therefore, the reopening of assessment is bad in law and it was his prayer that the re-assessment order dated 15.10.2015 should be cancelled. Ld A.R. also relied on the decision of Indore Bench of Hon’ble M.P.High Court in the case of Lokendrasingh vs ITO, 128 ITR 450(MP). 5. Ld D.R. supported the orders of the lower authorities. 6.…

ITO 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Parekh Pipes P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be partly allowed and the cross-objection of the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 5847/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5847/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-4(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Parekh Pipes Pvt. Ltd. 158/160, Laxmi Bhuvan, 1St Room No.648, 6Th Floor, Vs. Floor, Opp. Coton Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Exchange, Kalbadevi, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002. Co. No.207/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita. No. 5847/Mum/2016) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ M/S. Parekh Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Ito-4(3)(1) 158/160, Laxmi Bhuvan, 1St Room No.648, 6Th Floor, Vs. Floor, Opp. Coton Exchange, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp9904A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Pradip Kapasi (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/02/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2019

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…the provision u/s 147/148 of the Act is not liable to be invoked and in support of this contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has relied upon the law settled in the case of Bharat Jayantilal Patel, 378 ITR 596 (Bom) and Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC). On the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has refuted the said contention. It is a case in which the assessment of the assessee was reopened on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai of Income Tax Department in which it was conveyed that the Sales Tax Authorities of Maharashtra conducted…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3723/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…by CBDT explaining the scope of amended section 147 of the Act. ITA Nos. 3722, 3723/Del/2014, 2310/Del/12 & CO. No.258/Del/2012 11 The aforesaid decision of the Full Bench (supra) was affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd: 320 ITR 561 (SC). Reliance is placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court dated 20.07.2017 in the case of the assessee [WP(C) 8165/2010], wherein the High Court quashed similar notice issued under section 148 of the Act by the assessing officer for assessment year 2004-05, which decision squarely covers the present case. In the said case, reason for initi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3722/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…by CBDT explaining the scope of amended section 147 of the Act. ITA Nos. 3722, 3723/Del/2014, 2310/Del/12 & CO. No.258/Del/2012 11 The aforesaid decision of the Full Bench (supra) was affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd: 320 ITR 561 (SC). Reliance is placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court dated 20.07.2017 in the case of the assessee [WP(C) 8165/2010], wherein the High Court quashed similar notice issued under section 148 of the Act by the assessing officer for assessment year 2004-05, which decision squarely covers the present case. In the said case, reason for initi…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2310/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…by CBDT explaining the scope of amended section 147 of the Act. ITA Nos. 3722, 3723/Del/2014, 2310/Del/12 & CO. No.258/Del/2012 11 The aforesaid decision of the Full Bench (supra) was affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd: 320 ITR 561 (SC). Reliance is placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court dated 20.07.2017 in the case of the assessee [WP(C) 8165/2010], wherein the High Court quashed similar notice issued under section 148 of the Act by the assessing officer for assessment year 2004-05, which decision squarely covers the present case. In the said case, reason for initi…

The Dcitanand Circle, Anand vs. Elecon Engineering Co.Ltd., Anand

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1656/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Roysr.No.

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148

…documentary evidence/ tangible material, the reopening under section 147 of the Act is not sustainable. In this regard, we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT versus M/s Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 wherein it was held as under: “The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess, but the reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain pre- conditions and if the concept of 'change of opinion' is removed as contended on behalf of the department, then in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take plac…

The Dcitanand Circle, Anand vs. Elecon Engineering Co.Ltd., Anand

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1316/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Roysr.No.

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148

…documentary evidence/ tangible material, the reopening under section 147 of the Act is not sustainable. In this regard, we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT versus M/s Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 wherein it was held as under: “The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess, but the reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain pre- conditions and if the concept of 'change of opinion' is removed as contended on behalf of the department, then in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take plac…

Shri Manak Chand Modi, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Jaipur

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

ITA 1067/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Anuradha (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 154Section 234B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”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. 1067/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2008-09 cuke Shri Manak Chand Modi The DCIT, Vs. D-185, Mangal Marg, Bapu Nagar, Circle-7, Jaipur-302015. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADDPM 4856 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. An…

The Income Tax Officer, Srinagar vs. Sh. Suhail Ahmed Bhat, Prop. M/S Shifa Traders, Rangparistan, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 136/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.136(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year:2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)For Respondent: Sh. Joginder Singh (Ld.CA)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.136(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year:2007-08 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sh. Suhail Ahmad Bhat, Ward-3(3), Srinagar Prop. Shifa Traders, Rangparistan, Rainawari, Srinagar (J&K). [PAN:AIRPB 0054E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR) Respondent by: Sh. Joginder Singh (Ld.CA) Date of hearing: 03.04.2019 Date of pronouncement: 23.04.2019 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: The instant appeal has been preferred by the Revenue Department against the o…

Surabhi Souharda Credit Co-Operative Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2)(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 206/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 80P

…ons recorded that no tangible material has come into the possession of the AO, based on which he entertained a belief regarding escapement of income. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., [320 ITR 561] (SC). It was his contention that in the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took the view that - the AO does not have a power to review his own order. If, without tangible material coming to his possession after the conclusion of an assessment, the AO is allowed to initiate re-assessment proceedings, then that would amount to giving power t…

Pawan Kumar Malhotra, Prop, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2670/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Garg, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 36

…The ld. AR vehemently contended that since the reopening is done on the basis of audit objection, the same cannot be considered as new tangible material evidence and hence the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd 320 ITR 561 clearly apply. The ld. AR further contended that reopening is bad in law and the assessment based upon such notice of reopening deserves to be quashed. 7. We do not find any force in the contention of the ld. AR. It is true that some audit objections were made by the audit party. It is equally true that on 31.01.2013 the CIT(Audit) dropped the…

Capri Global Advisory Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 170/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Jitendra Jain/Mahesh Rajora-Ld.ARsFor Respondent: Abhi Rama Kartikeyan - Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 68

…the already concluded issues u/s 143(3) and review in the garb of reassessment was not permissible under the law. Further, mere reasons to suspect could not substitute reasons to believe. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [320 ITR 561] has succinctly put the legal proposition in the following manner: - “Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain preconditions and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the as…

Ragbirsingh Maliksingh Rajpal, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1100/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Pune04 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1100/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Babu
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 2Section 54FSection 56

…nder:- “6. We note that the Apex Court in Income-Tax Officer V/s. Techspan India Private Limited and Another, reported in [2018] 404 ITR 10 (SC) reiterated the settled principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT V/s. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561(SC) that the Assessing Officer has a power only to reassess and has no power to review the assessment order. Thus, it held that no re-opening notice can be issued which is premised on a change of opinion. It further goes on to hold that before interference with a proposed reopening of the assessment, the Court should verify whether the assessment…

DCIT 14(20(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Home Finance Co.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7223/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit-14(2)(1),432, 4Th Floor, M/S Icici Home Finance Co. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, 7Th Floor, West Wing South Tower, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Pan – Aaaci6285N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 81/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7223/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Ms. Anita Hardasani, D.RFor Respondent: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, A.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…n cases where the order of assessment does addressed itself to a given aspect sought to be examined in the reassessment proceedings. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court after referring to its earlier judgment in the case of CIT Delhi Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), had though reiterated the view earlier taken by the Court that a mere „change of opinion‟ cannot per se be a reason to reopen a concluded assessment, but had also stated that it has to be verified as to whether the assessment earlier made has either expressly or by necessary implication expressed an opinion on a matter which forms the basis…

A.C.I.T, Akola Circle, Akola vs. M/S Leben Laboratories Pvt..Ltd, Akola

ITA 235/NAG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Respondent: S/Shri C.J. Thakar & S.C. Thakar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…143(3) the reopening has been made merely on change of opinion. The reopening of assessment to impose change of opinion is not permissible. In support of his contentions the ld. AR placed reliance on following decisions : i. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC); ii. Direct Information (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO, 349 ITR 150 (Bom); iii. Siemens Information System Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 295 ITR 333(Bom); iv. CIT Vs. Dinshaw Frozen Food Ltd. decided by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench in Income Tax Appeal No. 32 of 2003 on 29-09-2007. 4. On the other hand Shri R.K. Baral representing the Department vehemently def…

M/S. Leben Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Akola vs. ACIT, Akola Circle, Akola

ITA 459/NAG/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Mar 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Respondent: S/Shri C.J. Thakar & S.C. Thakar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…143(3) the reopening has been made merely on change of opinion. The reopening of assessment to impose change of opinion is not permissible. In support of his contentions the ld. AR placed reliance on following decisions : i. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC); ii. Direct Information (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO, 349 ITR 150 (Bom); iii. Siemens Information System Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 295 ITR 333(Bom); iv. CIT Vs. Dinshaw Frozen Food Ltd. decided by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench in Income Tax Appeal No. 32 of 2003 on 29-09-2007. 4. On the other hand Shri R.K. Baral representing the Department vehemently def…