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)

Dilwara Leasing & Investment Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-7(3), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee

ITA 3927/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…asonable. In other words, it must be based on reasons which are relevant and material. The existence of tangible and relevant material is a precondition for assuming jurisdiction, as has been held in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) and ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC). Hence, in this case the proceedings have been initiated on the basis of no material much less any tangible and, relevant material and as such reasons record do not constitute valid reason to believe for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. It is a case o…

The DCIT-3(1), Indore vs. Kumari Sheetal Garg, Indore

In the result Ground No. 1& 2 of the

ITA 254/IND/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Dcit-3(1), Kumari Sheetal Garg, Indore Vs. 8/2, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Afhpg9179G Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ca Date Of Hearing 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2Section 53ASection 54F

…se reopening of the completed assessment u/s 143(3) beyond four years was not valid as it was merely for change of opinion and therefore in the light of the settled legal position as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s Kelvinator of India Ltd 320 ITR 561 (SC) which in our view squarely applies on the facts of the assessee, the reassessment proceedings carried out u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act in the case of the assessee are bad in law and cannot be held to be valid. We therefore find no reason to interfere in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) holding the reassessment proceedings as invalid and uph…

ACIT, Circle - 10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Vesuvius India Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2332/KOL/2017[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2018AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:1999-00

Section 114Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…Where the reason for reassessment discloses that the AO has formed his belief on the basis of the return of income, it is nothing but a reviews of earlier proceedings, not permissible in view of Apex Court decision in CIT –vs.-Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) 1.3 Further, it was also submitted that similar issue has been decided in favour of the appellant by the hon'ble Kolkata ITAT in AY 2002-03 (ITA No. 2138/Kol/2013) vide order dated 03-05-2017. 1.4 The contention of the Appellant against reopening of the case u/s. 1147 have been duly considered. Placing reliance in the case of CIT – vs.- Orie…

DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Coal India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1347/KOL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…available before him while completing the original assessment under section 143(3) and there was no new tangible material that had come to his possession on the basis of which the assessment was reopened by him. In the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that after the amendment made with effect from 1st April, 1989 in the relevant provisions, the Assessing Officer has to have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, but this does not imply that the Assessing Officer can reopen an assessment on the mere change of opinion. Explaining further, Hon'ble Ap…

DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Coal India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1346/KOL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…available before him while completing the original assessment under section 143(3) and there was no new tangible material that had come to his possession on the basis of which the assessment was reopened by him. In the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that after the amendment made with effect from 1st April, 1989 in the relevant provisions, the Assessing Officer has to have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, but this does not imply that the Assessing Officer can reopen an assessment on the mere change of opinion. Explaining further, Hon'ble Ap…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2580/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…nk Ltd. [(2013) 357 ITR 448 (Ker)]; xvi. Sitara Diamond Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [(2013) 358 ITR 424 (Bom)]; xvii. Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2014) 363 ITR 630 (Mad)]. 5.25. So far as, the decision in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while coming to a particular conclusion, only in a situation, when not a single piece of paper or document was recovered, therefore, the Hon’ble Court held that since there was no tangible material found and the addition was merely on the basis of statement only then reopening of assessment u/s 147 of th…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2579/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…nk Ltd. [(2013) 357 ITR 448 (Ker)]; xvi. Sitara Diamond Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [(2013) 358 ITR 424 (Bom)]; xvii. Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2014) 363 ITR 630 (Mad)]. 5.25. So far as, the decision in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while coming to a particular conclusion, only in a situation, when not a single piece of paper or document was recovered, therefore, the Hon’ble Court held that since there was no tangible material found and the addition was merely on the basis of statement only then reopening of assessment u/s 147 of th…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2578/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…nk Ltd. [(2013) 357 ITR 448 (Ker)]; xvi. Sitara Diamond Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [(2013) 358 ITR 424 (Bom)]; xvii. Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2014) 363 ITR 630 (Mad)]. 5.25. So far as, the decision in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while coming to a particular conclusion, only in a situation, when not a single piece of paper or document was recovered, therefore, the Hon’ble Court held that since there was no tangible material found and the addition was merely on the basis of statement only then reopening of assessment u/s 147 of th…

Vishesh Infrastructure P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 4464/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Batra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. SL Anuragi, Sr. DR

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

…he case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Usha International Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 485 (Delhi) [Full Bench] and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited in Appeal Nos. 2009-2011 of 2003 reported in 320 ITR 561. 8.1 Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid precedents, I am of the view that both the authorities below have gone wrong in deciding the reopening as valid. Hence, I quash the orders of the authorities below on this legal issue and decide the same in favor of the assessee. 8.2 Since I have already quashed the reassessment proceedings…

Biography Investments Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1847/AHD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Gyan Pipara, A.RFor Respondent: S.K. Dev, Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 69

…ITA No.1847/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Page 1 of 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 Biography Investments Pvt. Ltd., vs. Income Tax Officer, 9th Floor, B.D. Patel House, Ward – 1(2) (Now Ward 1(1)(2), Naranpura, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad – 380 013. [PAN – AABCB 6854 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Gyan Pipara, A.R. Respondent by : S.K. Dev, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 15.11.2018 Date of pronouncement : 30.11.2018 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL…

Brijendra Nath Agarwal, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1666/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1666/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Brijendra Nath Agarwal, Mzsk & Associates, Chartered Accountants Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Near Rto, Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aawpa9005D Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 2(1), Pune

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.1666/PUN/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Brijendra Nath Agarwal, MZSK & Associates, Chartered Accountants Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Near RTO, Pune – 411001 …. PAN: AAWPA9005D Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 2(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.1667/…

Agarwal Group Corporate Holding P. Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1667/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1666/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Brijendra Nath Agarwal, Mzsk & Associates, Chartered Accountants Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Near Rto, Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aawpa9005D Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 2(1), Pune

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.1666/PUN/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Brijendra Nath Agarwal, MZSK & Associates, Chartered Accountants Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Near RTO, Pune – 411001 …. PAN: AAWPA9005D Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 2(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.1667/…

Radiance Stock Traders Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(4), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4542/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. LalitFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 234BSection 68

…asonable. In other words, it must be based on reasons which are relevant and material. The existence of tangible and relevant material is a precondition for assuming jurisdiction, as has been held in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) and ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 (SC). Hence, in this case the proceedings have been initiated on the basis of no material much less any tangible and, relevant material and as such reasons record do not constitute valid reason to believe for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. It is a case o…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Escort Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3652/DEL/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2001-02

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)(iv)

…g was done only because the Assessing Officer who completed the original assessment did not make any effort to ascertain the market value of the shares. The judgements in the case of Eicher Ltd. & Kelvinator of India Ltd. were affirmed by the Supreme Court in 320 ITR 561. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that Post 1st April 1989, the power to reopen is much wider but one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the 10 words "reason to believe" failing which, Section 147 of the Act would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion" which cannot be per…

DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2291/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata.……......…………….…............Appellant Vs. M/S. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd......………...........…………..……………….…...……..….…….......Respondent Bengal Eco Intelligent Park (Techno) Tower-1, Block-Em Plot No.3 Salt Lake City Sector-V 3Rd Floor Kolkata -91 [Pan : Aaach 7360 R] Appearances By: Shri H. Chakravorty, Sr. General Manager F & A, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri C.J. Singh, Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 29Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 9Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 07/09/2016, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2006-07, On The Following Grounds:-

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…e done only on the basis of a change in opinion on the same set of facts. I find that this issue is squarely covered in favor of the assessee and against the revenue by the judgement of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator India Ltd reported in 310 ITR 561. It was held that 147 proceedings cannot be initiated merely on change of opinion. Further, reason to believe of the AO is founded on an information which might have been received by the AO after the completion of the assessment in which case the reopening may be on sound foundation. I further find that where regular order of assessment is passed…

Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1815/MUM/2017[2009-140]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2009-140

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal,Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Kotak Mahindra Asset Assistant Commissioner Of Income Management Co. Ltd.,C-27 बिधम/ Tax- 14(2)(1), Mumbai. Bkc, G Block, Bandra Kurla Vs. Complex, Bandra E, Mumbai 400 051. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaack5576C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Deputy Commissioner Of Kotak Mahindra Asset Management बिधम/ Income Tax- 14(2)(1), 432, 4Th Co. Ltd., C-27 Bkc, G Block, Bandra Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra E, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 020. 400 051. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaack5576C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri. Farrokh Irani & Chetan Kakka, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. R.B. Wadkar, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others (No.1) (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom) and that of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). Further, it was submitted by the Ld. A.R that from a bare perusal of the „Reasons to believe‟, it could safely be ITA NO(s). 1815/Mum/2017 & 1794/Mum/2017 7 Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Co. Ltd. Vs ACIT-14(2)(1) & DCIT-14(2)(1) Vs. Kotak Mahindra asset Management Co. Ltd. gathered that the same were totally vague. The Ld. A.R in order to…

DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Co.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1794/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal,Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Kotak Mahindra Asset Assistant Commissioner Of Income Management Co. Ltd.,C-27 बिधम/ Tax- 14(2)(1), Mumbai. Bkc, G Block, Bandra Kurla Vs. Complex, Bandra E, Mumbai 400 051. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaack5576C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Deputy Commissioner Of Kotak Mahindra Asset Management बिधम/ Income Tax- 14(2)(1), 432, 4Th Co. Ltd., C-27 Bkc, G Block, Bandra Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra E, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 020. 400 051. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaack5576C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri. Farrokh Irani & Chetan Kakka, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. R.B. Wadkar, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others (No.1) (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom) and that of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). Further, it was submitted by the Ld. A.R that from a bare perusal of the „Reasons to believe‟, it could safely be ITA NO(s). 1815/Mum/2017 & 1794/Mum/2017 7 Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Co. Ltd. Vs ACIT-14(2)(1) & DCIT-14(2)(1) Vs. Kotak Mahindra asset Management Co. Ltd. gathered that the same were totally vague. The Ld. A.R in order to…

DCIT 9(2), Mumbai vs. Magnus Properties P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5944/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwaldy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–9(2), Mumbai V/S M/S. Magnus Properties Pvt. Ltd. Uniphos House, Madhu Park ……………. Respondent 11Th Road, Khar (West) Mumbai 400 052 Pan – Aadcm7520M

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–9(2), Mumbai v/s M/s. Magnus Properties Pvt. Ltd. Uniphos House, Madhu Park ……………. Respondent 11th Road, Khar (West) Mumbai 400 052 PAN – AADCM7520M ITA No. 836/Mum./2015 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–12(3)(2), Mumbai v/s M/s. Magnus Properties Pvt. Ltd. Uniphos House, Madhu Park ……………. Respondent 11th Road, Khar (West) Mumbai 400 052 PAN – AADCM7520M ITA No. 70…

Solo Hardware P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1486/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 115JSection 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…k Ltd. [(2013) 357 ITR 448 (Ker)]; xvi. Sitara Diamond Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [(2013) 358 ITR 424 (Bom)]; xvii. Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2014) 363 ITR 630 (Mad)]. 2.28. So far as, the decision in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while coming to a particular conclusion, only in a situation, when not a single piece of paper or document was recovered, therefore, the Hon’ble Court held that since there was no tangible material found and the addition was merely on the basis of statement only then reopening of assessment u/s 147 of…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Erawat Infotech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to the extent of holding the proceedings under section 147 of the Act is invalid. The grounds of the appeal of the Revenue are accordingly allowed

ITA 5570/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2002-03 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Erawat Infotech Pvt. Central Circle-23, Room No. Ltd., 359, E-2, Ara Centre, B-44, Second Floor, Jhandewalan Extn., New Jangpura –B, New Delhi Delhi Pan :Aaace8941P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…o reopen concluded assessment can validly be exercised. The consideration which ought to weigh with the Revenue and are considered valid are the existence of tangible material or information - in the light of the judgment in CIT v. Kelvinator of India. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). 9. Having regard to the contents of the notice for AY 2003-04, the court is unable to agree with the findings of the ITAT. It constitutes reference to tangible material “outside” the record, i.e. information based upon the investigation of the Commissioner of Central Excise with respect to the purchases made by the assesses. However, as far…

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.

Dilwara Leasing & Investment Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-7(3), New Delhi

The DCIT-3(1), Indore vs. Kumari Sheetal Garg, Indore

ACIT, Circle - 10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Vesuvius India Ltd., Kolkata

DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Coal India Ltd., Kolkata

DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Coal India Ltd., Kolkata

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

Vishesh Infrastructure P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi

Biography Investments Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Ahmedabad

Brijendra Nath Agarwal, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

Agarwal Group Corporate Holding P. Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

Radiance Stock Traders Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(4), New Delhi

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Escort Ltd., New Delhi

DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd, Kolkata

Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai

DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Co.Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT 9(2), Mumbai vs. Magnus Properties P.Ltd, Mumbai

Solo Hardware P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Erawat Infotech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi