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.

The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Ganesh Housing Corporation Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3083/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) “Ganesh Corporate House” Navjivan Trust Bldg. Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaacg 5590 Q With Co No.216/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Navjivan Trust Bldg. “Ganesh Corporate House” Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri C. Danday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2018 आदेश/O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri C. Danday, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 253Section 4Section 40A(2)(b)

…the explanation of the assessee submitted in the objection against reopening, and thereafter he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme ITA No.3083/Ahd/2015 with CO And ITA No.3034/Ahd/2015 7 Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s.Kelvinator of India Ld., 320 ITR 561 (SC). He made reference to other large number of decisions relied upon before the ld.CIT(A). At this stage, we would like to take note of specific objection raised by the assessee before the AO against reopening qua this issue. It reads as under: (C) Payments to director for cancellation of booking being land purchased amounting to Rs.1,08,14,73…

Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4, Now, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3034/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) “Ganesh Corporate House” Navjivan Trust Bldg. Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaacg 5590 Q With Co No.216/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Navjivan Trust Bldg. “Ganesh Corporate House” Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri C. Danday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2018 आदेश/O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri C. Danday, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 253Section 4Section 40A(2)(b)

…the explanation of the assessee submitted in the objection against reopening, and thereafter he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme ITA No.3083/Ahd/2015 with CO And ITA No.3034/Ahd/2015 7 Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s.Kelvinator of India Ld., 320 ITR 561 (SC). He made reference to other large number of decisions relied upon before the ld.CIT(A). At this stage, we would like to take note of specific objection raised by the assessee before the AO against reopening qua this issue. It reads as under: (C) Payments to director for cancellation of booking being land purchased amounting to Rs.1,08,14,73…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Yamaha Motor India Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 992/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2006-07] The Dy. C.I.T, Vs. M/S Yamaha Motor India Sales Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor Circle 18 (1), New Delhi. The Great Eastern Centre 70, Nehru Place, Behind Ifci Tower New Delhi [Pan : Aaacy 2505 K] [A.Y 2006-07] M/S Yamaha Motor India Sales Vs. The Dy.C.I.T, Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor Circle 18 (1), The Great Eastern Centre New Delhi. 70, Nehru Place, Behind Ifci Tower, New Delhi [Pan : Aaacy 2505 K] [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2018 Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Adv

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT- DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32Section 92

…r to issue notice for reopening of the assessment. For this proposition, we derive support from the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd 256 ITR 1 which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 320 ITR 561. 11. In his reasons for reopening the assessment, the Assessing Officer had observed that the assessee had claimed and allowed advertisement expenses of Rs. 23.31 crores out of which the assessee was reimbursed Rs. 10.97 crores and balance of Rs. 11.50 crores has been shown under the head “Loan and Advance” recovered towards reimbursement. This o…

M/S. Yamaha Motor India Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1095/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2006-07] The Dy. C.I.T, Vs. M/S Yamaha Motor India Sales Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor Circle 18 (1), New Delhi. The Great Eastern Centre 70, Nehru Place, Behind Ifci Tower New Delhi [Pan : Aaacy 2505 K] [A.Y 2006-07] M/S Yamaha Motor India Sales Vs. The Dy.C.I.T, Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor Circle 18 (1), The Great Eastern Centre New Delhi. 70, Nehru Place, Behind Ifci Tower, New Delhi [Pan : Aaacy 2505 K] [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2018 Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Adv

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT- DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32Section 92

…r to issue notice for reopening of the assessment. For this proposition, we derive support from the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd 256 ITR 1 which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 320 ITR 561. 11. In his reasons for reopening the assessment, the Assessing Officer had observed that the assessee had claimed and allowed advertisement expenses of Rs. 23.31 crores out of which the assessee was reimbursed Rs. 10.97 crores and balance of Rs. 11.50 crores has been shown under the head “Loan and Advance” recovered towards reimbursement. This o…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…DELHI BENCH: ‘I-1’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No. 467/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2009-10) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6 Vasank Kunj New Delhi New Delhi AAACM0829Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. Tejasvi Adv Respondent by Shr. G. C. Srivastava, Adv, Sh. Sanjay Kr. Dass, DR. Date of Hearing 27.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement 17.10.2018 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10 against the ord…

Sasikala Raghupathy, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.366/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, New No.60, Old No.100, Central Circle 3(1), Iv Street, Abhiramapuram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aaafr5481B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ca Jharna B. Harilal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Bharath, Cit

For Appellant: Shri CA Jharna B. Harilal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250(6)Section 263Section 54F

…अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.366/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs The ACIT, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, New No.60, Old No.100, Central Circle 3(1), IV Street, Abhiramapuram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. PAN: AAAFR5481B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri CA Jharna B. Harilal, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respon…

Muktha Infrastructure (P) Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward -4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 361/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.361/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 M/S. Muktha Infrastructure (P) Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, 4/318, Marg Axis, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Vs. Corporate Ward 4(1), Kottivakkam, Chennai 600 041. Chennai. [Pan: Aafcm0703Q] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Shri D. Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Vijayaprabha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 8, Chennai Dated 06.11.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Ground Raised By The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Also Confirming The Addition Of ₹.3,10,33,094/- Under Section 115Jb Of The Act.

For Respondent: Ms. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…material facts for assessment, the assessment cannot be reopened under section 147 of the Act and is barred by limitation. It was also held that the assessment cannot be reopened on mere change of opinion. In the case of CIT v. M/s. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [320 ITR 561], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that after 01.04.1989, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen the assessment under section 147 provided he has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income and mere change of opinion cannot per se the reason to r…

Shree Global Tradefin Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7313/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…to change of opinion. The ld. Counsel, in support, relied upon the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Purity Techtextile Ltd. vs ACIT (325 ITR 459)(Bom.) and another decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs Kelvinator India Itd. (320 ITR 561)(Supreme Court). The Id. counsel further argued that the conditions of the proviso to section 147 of the Act are not satisfied as there are no allegations in the reasons to the effect that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts M/s Shree Global Tradefin Ltd. ITA Nos7310 to 7313/Mum/ 2017 fully and trul…

Shree Global Tradefin Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7312/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…to change of opinion. The ld. Counsel, in support, relied upon the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Purity Techtextile Ltd. vs ACIT (325 ITR 459)(Bom.) and another decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs Kelvinator India Itd. (320 ITR 561)(Supreme Court). The Id. counsel further argued that the conditions of the proviso to section 147 of the Act are not satisfied as there are no allegations in the reasons to the effect that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts M/s Shree Global Tradefin Ltd. ITA Nos7310 to 7313/Mum/ 2017 fully and trul…

Shree Global Tradefin Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7311/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…to change of opinion. The ld. Counsel, in support, relied upon the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Purity Techtextile Ltd. vs ACIT (325 ITR 459)(Bom.) and another decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs Kelvinator India Itd. (320 ITR 561)(Supreme Court). The Id. counsel further argued that the conditions of the proviso to section 147 of the Act are not satisfied as there are no allegations in the reasons to the effect that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts M/s Shree Global Tradefin Ltd. ITA Nos7310 to 7313/Mum/ 2017 fully and trul…

Shree Global Tradefin Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7310/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…to change of opinion. The ld. Counsel, in support, relied upon the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Purity Techtextile Ltd. vs ACIT (325 ITR 459)(Bom.) and another decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs Kelvinator India Itd. (320 ITR 561)(Supreme Court). The Id. counsel further argued that the conditions of the proviso to section 147 of the Act are not satisfied as there are no allegations in the reasons to the effect that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts M/s Shree Global Tradefin Ltd. ITA Nos7310 to 7313/Mum/ 2017 fully and trul…

Snehalata Ahnand Rane, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 3(3), Kalyan

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1787/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…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…

Snehalata Ahnand Rane, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 3(3), Kalyan

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1786/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…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…

Snehalata Ahnand Rane, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 3(3), Kalyan

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1785/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…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…

Shri Dineshkumar C. Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1730/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 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)]. 4.27. 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 Dinesh S. Jain then reopening of asse…

Urvish B. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 25 (3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2259/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sashi TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…e assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has the power to reassess but no power to review his own orders under the garb of reopening. The ld.AR strongly relied on the series of decisions in defense of his argument: - a. CIT v. Kelvinator India [320 ITR 561 (SC)] b. Cartini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [(2009) 314 ITR 275 (Bom).] c. Jal Hotels Co. Limited v. Asst. DIT [(2009) 24 DTR 37 (Del.)] (18) Therefore, the Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that even on the ground of change of opinion the reopening of assessment is bad in law and void ab-initio. (19) Lastly the Ld.AR argued that there is…

ITO 33(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Urvish B. Mehta, Mumbai

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

ITA 1352/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sashi TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…e assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has the power to reassess but no power to review his own orders under the garb of reopening. The ld.AR strongly relied on the series of decisions in defense of his argument: - a. CIT v. Kelvinator India [320 ITR 561 (SC)] b. Cartini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [(2009) 314 ITR 275 (Bom).] c. Jal Hotels Co. Limited v. Asst. DIT [(2009) 24 DTR 37 (Del.)] (18) Therefore, the Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that even on the ground of change of opinion the reopening of assessment is bad in law and void ab-initio. (19) Lastly the Ld.AR argued that there is…

Landmark Education India, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) II (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4871/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2008-09 Landmark Education India, Income Tax Officer B-206, Bhaveshwar Plaza, (Exemption)-Ii(1), बनाम/ Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai 400086 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaatl0059L

Section 11Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…erely on the basis of change of opinion. Our attention was further invited to ITA. No.4871/Mum/2014 3 Landmark Education India pages 6, 21, 24, 30, 31 and 33 of the paper book. Reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (Supreme Court), CIT vs ICICI Bank Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 482(Bom.) NYK Line (India) Ltd. [2012] 346 ITR 361(Bom) and NDT Systems and Another vs Income Tax Officer & Ors. [2014] 363 ITR 603(Bom.). 2.1. On the other hand, Shri Nitin Waghmode, ld. DR, defended the reopening of assessment by placing reliance upon the decision in the case of Dr. A…

ITO, Ward-16(2), Hyderabad vs. New Cyberabad City Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the CO by the assessee is allowed

ITA 606/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri B. RamakrishnanFor Respondent: Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain
Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 606/Hyd/2017 and CO No. 20/Hyd/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Income-tax Officer, vs. New Cyberabad City Projects Ward – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. PAN – AACCC 8896K (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Revenue by : Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain Assessee by : Shri B. Ramakrishnan Date of hearing : 31/07/2018 Date of pronouncement : 03/10/2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(3) Cr 4, Mumbai vs. Kargwal Products P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1462/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhdcit, Cc- 4(3) Central M/S Kargwal Products P. Ltd. Range-4, Room No. 1921, Om Shiv Sai Chs, Off Eastern C-11, 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. Express Highway, Opp Sion Building, Nariman Point, Chunabhati Signal, Sion, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400022. Pan: Aadck3047P Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.132/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2009-10) M/S Kargwal Products P. Ltd. Dcit, Cc- 4(3) Central Om Shiv Sai Chs, Off Eastern Range-4, Room No. 1921, C-11, 19Th Floor, Air India Express Highway, Opp Sion Vs. Chunabhati Signal, Sion, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aadck3047P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah (Dr) Respondent By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop (Sr. Ar) Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah (DR)For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…ase of Krupesh Ghanshyambhai Thakkar vs. DCIT [77 taxmann.com 293], Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Batra Bhatia Company [321 ITR 526], CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd. [354 ITR 536], Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [320 ITR 561(SC)] . 7. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. The assessee filed return of income on 31.03.2010 for Assessment Year 2009-10. The assessment was processed under section 143(1). The assessment was reopened on 29.03.2014 without four year from the end of relevant Assessment Ye…