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 367,359 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.

ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3236/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

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 then reopening of assessment u/s 147 of…

Jaydeep Profiles Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2698/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

Mohd Hasan Abdul Gafoor Momin, Thane vs. ITO WD 1(2), Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3336/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Mohd. Hasan Abdul Gafoor Momin, Income Tax Officer, 430/2, Kotwal Shah Dargha Ward-1(2), बनाम/ Road, Bhiwandi, District- Thane, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Vs. Maharashtra-421308 Wayale Nagar, Kalyan ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aekpm0354F

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254

…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)]. 3.29. 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 37 Mohd. Hasan Abdul Gafoor Momin statement only then…

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. National Bank of Agriculture An Rural Development, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3649/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhdcit 3(2)(2) National Bank Of Agriculture & Room No. 674, 6Th Floor, Rural Development, C-24, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400020. Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan: Aaact4020G Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT 3(2)(2) National Bank of Agriculture and Room No. 674, 6th Floor, Rural Development, C-24, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400020. Bandra, Mumbai-400051. PAN: AAACT4020G Appellant Respondent C.O. No.113/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2006-07) National Bank of Agriculture and DCIT 3(2)(2) Room No. 674, 6th Floor, Rural Development, C-24, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. PAN:…

M/S. Asiatic Oxygen Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1381/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1381/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata. [Pan: Aacca 6748 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.M Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ll known that a presumption can also be raised to the effect that in terms of section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act and judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) had held in similar circumstance that if it be held that an order which has been passed purportedly without application of mind would itself confer jurisdiction upon the AO to reopen the proceedings without anything further, the same would amount to giving premium to an authority exercising quasi-judicial function to take benefit of its own…

Jyoti Apparels vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/298/2006HC Delhi06 Sept 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 80Section 80H

…iew of the then prevailing Full Bench ruling of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., (2002) 256 ITR 1. The judgment has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). In this case, the assessee filed its return which was processed under Section 143(1) and an intimation was sent on 18.12.2001, for Assessment Year 2000-01. Subsequently, the A.O. recorded satisfaction, and proceeded to issue notice under Sections 147/148. The reasons so recorded by the A.O. are as follows : “On perusal of return of…

S.Harishanker vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA/436/2009HC Delhi05 Sept 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 28

…or remand report and after discussing its contents rejected the appeal. ITA 436/2009 page 3 of 7 4. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal after considering the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator (India) Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 as well as the later rulings of the Supreme Court and this Court held that there was no tangible material and that the mere circumstance that advance tax to the tune of Rs.27.6 lakhs was paid did not amount to admission by him. The learned counsel for the revenue contends that having regard to the Explanation 1 of section 147 read with sec…

Ambuja Cement India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2600/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri. Soumen Adak &For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 234B

…to the effect that in terms of clause (e) of section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, judicial and official acts have to be regularly performed. The aforesaid view has been fortified by the Apex court in case of CIT -vs.- Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SO wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, after 01-04-1989, the A.O. has power to re-open, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. The Apex court further held that, one needs to give a schematic inter…

DCIT Cir 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kargwal Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 7108/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Acit Cir-6(3)(2), Room No. M/S Kargwal 522, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, 107, First Floor, Mumbai-400020. Runwal Omkar Esquare, Off Eastern Exp. Highway, Sion, Mumbai-400022 Pan No. Aadck1853D Appellant Respondent Co No. 75/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 7108/Mum/2016) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Kargwal Construction Acit Cir-6(3)(2), Pvt. Ltd. 107, First Floor, Room No. 522, 5Th Vs. Runwal Omkar Esquare, Off Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Eastern Exp. Highway, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400022 400020. Pan No. Aadck1853D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M. Naveen, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…was given to the assessee to explain anything on the issue of share premium. The Ld. CIT(A) followed the decision in CIT v. Usha International 348 ITR 485 (Delhi), Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India v. Addl CIT 350 ITR 651, Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 and Sheo Nath Singh 82 ITR 147 and held that the reopening the assessment done by the AO was only on the basis of guess-work and mere change in opinion. The Ld. CIT(A) thus concluded that there was no merit in reopening of the assessment by the AO. 5. Before us, the Ld. DR submits that during the financial year (FY) 2008-09 relevant to the AY 200…

ACIT (E) 20(3), Mumbai vs. Seema Dilip Vora, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 582/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2007-08 Acit-20(3), Ms. Seema Dilip Vora, Room No.622, 71/72, Rajkamal Apartment बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Rajkamal Marg, Rajkamal Vs. Mumbai Studio, Near Gandhi Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpv0816C

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…t is in support of the impugned order. Reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Amitabh Bachhan (2012) 349 ITR 76 (Bom.), Aroni Commercials Ltd. vs DCIT (2014) 362 ITR 403 (Bom.) and CIT vs Kelvintor India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (Supreme Court). 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the light of the arguments advanced from both sides, now question arises whether there was a “change of opinion” by the Assessing Officer and the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 after a period of four years. Before ad…

M/S T T K Prestige Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

WP/30388/2015HC Karnataka10 Aug 2018

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

Section 143Section 147Section 148

…lar question. It is a result of understanding, experience and reflection. 11) It is well settled and held by this court in a catena of judgments and it would be sufficient to refer Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561(SC) wherein this Court has held as under:- - 38 - “5….where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to re- open the assessment. Therefore, post-1st April, 1989, power to re-open is much wider. However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reas…

Achla Dhawan vs. Income Tax Officer

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2165/DEL/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2018AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri S. K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. D. R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…inadequate. That could not be considered as tangible material whose receipt could induce the formation of a belief as to escapement of income. The reopening was thus flawed and invalid. The decision of the apex court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) be referred to in this context. 16. The communication as received was in respect of a third party's doings. Without cross verification of that message with corroborative material and without providing an opportunity to the assessee for cross examining the third party, the message could not have been adopted as valid information in the subjec…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Gmr Holdings Pvt Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/58/2012HC Karnataka31 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 260Section 260A

…1/16 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2018 PRESENT THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA I.T.A.No.58/2012 BETWEEN: 1. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-I Central Revenue Buildings, Queens Road, Bengaluru – 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Bengaluru. …Appellants (By Mr. E.I. Sanmathi, Adv.) AND: M/s. GMR Holdings Pvt. Ltd. No.25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bengaluru – 560 025. …Respondent (By Mr. K.S. Ramabadr…

DCIT - 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. 3Dplm Solutions Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2789/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2789/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Dcit-14(3)(1), Mumbai बिधम/ M/S. 3Dplm Solutions Limited, Unit No.703-B, 7Th 455, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Vs. Floor, B-Wing, Reliable Floor, M.K. Marg, Mumbai- Tech Park, Airoli, Mumbai- 400020. 400708. Co. No.296/Mum/2017 (Ita. No. 2789/Mum/2016) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिधम/ M/S. 3Dplm Solutions Dcit-14(3)(1)-Mumbai Limited, Unit No.703-B, 7Th Room No.455, Aayakar Vs. Floor, B-Wing, Reliable Bhavan Maharashi Karve Tech Park, Airoli, Mumbai- Marg, Mumbai-400020. 400708. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz1421B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ram Tiwari (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri K. Ved (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07.05.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross Objection Against The Order Dated 25.01.2016 Passed

For Appellant: Shri K. Ved (AR)For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148

…mstances as discussed above vis-à-vis the prvisions of proviso to section 147 of the Act and the legal position on the issue as held by the various courts in the case of CIT Vs. Tarajan Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. 236 ITR 477 (SC), CIT Vs. M/s. Kelvinator of India Ltd, 320 ITR 561 (SC), Fenner (India) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 241 ITR 672 (Mad), Bhavesh Developers Vs. AO, 329 ITR 249 (Bom), Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT 308 ITR 195, (Bom) and also various other judgements cited by the appellant, the AO was not justified in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act and the same is quashed. The appellant’s ground of appeal on this issue…

DCIT-9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Atc India Tower Corporation Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 2620/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhin The Matter Of Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax -9(2) Room No. 260A, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ------- Appellant/ Revenue (Revenue Through Sh. Rajesh Kumar Yadav Sr Dr Versus M/S Atc India Tower Corporation, 404, 4Th Floor, Skyline Icon, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400049 Pan: Aajcs7669H -------- Respondent / Assessee (Assessee Through Sh. Satyen Sethi Advocate Reserve For Order : 02.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income -Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner (Appeals)-16, Mumbai Dated 22Nd January 2016, Which Arise From Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Dated 25Th March 2013 For Assessment Year

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

…rther, the copy of reply dated 08.10.2010 is also placed on record. The assessing officer after his satisfaction passed assessment order. In support of his submissions the ld AR for the assessee relied on the decision of CIT Vs Kalvinator of India Ltd [2010] 320 ITR 561(SC), Aroni 5 ATC India Tower Corporation Pvt Ltd Commercial Ltd Vs DCIT (2014) 362ITR 403 (Bom), Aroni Commercial Ltd Vs ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 405 (Bom), CIT Vs Jet Speed Audio P. Ltd 372 ITR 762(Bom), ITO Versus TechSpan India (P)Ltd [2018] 92 taxmann.com 361 (SC), CIT Versus Reliance Communication Infrastructure (2013) 212 ITR 177 (Bom), CIT Ver…

Spl Polymers Ltd Now A Division of Supreme Petrochem Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir VI(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6308/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM I.T.A. No. 6308/Mum/2011 (Assessment Year: 2002-03) SPL Polymers Ltd. The Assistant ld. Commissioner of Now a division of Supreme Petrochem Income Tax, Central Circle 29 Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Solitaire Corporate Park, Mumbai-400 020 Building No.11, 5th Floor, Vs. 167, Guru Hargovindji Marg, Andheri Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 092 PAN/GIR No. AAACS 7249 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Nitesh Joshi Respondent by : Shri V. Justin Date of Hearing : 03.05.201…

Sanghi Industries Ltd, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 628/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80H

…sed by the AO who has allowed these deductions. It was further contended that no fresh material was brought on record to come to a different conclusion. Assessee relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., [320 ITR 561] (SC) that AO cannot reopen an assessment on mere change of opinion. Assessee also contended that the reduction claimed u/s. 115JB was supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajantha Pharma Ltd., Vs. CIT [327 ITR 305], wherein the Hon'ble court has stated that the provisions of Section 115JB is a complete code itself…

The ITO 4(4), Indore vs. Shri Yogendra Singh Thakur, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 381/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2012-13 Ito 4(4), Shri Yogendra Singh Thakur, Indore Village Birgoda, Tehsil Depalpur, बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Admpt3091K Revenue By Shri K. G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.07.2018

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

…to 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 A Y 2003-04, the court is unable to agree with the findings of the IT AT. 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 f…

ACIT 31(1), Mumbai vs. Gundecha Builders, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4266/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

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

…ation on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. In this regard, relied upon plethora of judgements including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). The assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jashan Textile Mills (P) Ltd vs DCIT vs DCIT (2006) 284 ITR 542 and also in the case of Mistry Lalji Narsi Development Corporation vs ACIT (2010) 229 CTR 359. The assessee also relied upon the following judgements:- 10 ITA 4266/Mum/2015 & CO 74/Mum/201…

Bharat Petroleum Corp Ltd ( Kochi Refineries Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 1(1) RG 1, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2826/MUM/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2000-01 Assessment Year: 2002-03 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Tiresh Dave, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yashwant Kumar Bhaskar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 801ASection 80ISection 8O

…td., (Kochi Refineries Limited) under the Act and thus is bad in law. In defense of his arguments, the Ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions: • ITO v/s. TechSpan India (P.) Ltd. (2018) 92 taxmann.com 361 (SC) • CIT v/s. Kelvinator of India Limited (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) • Satnam Overseas v/s. DCIT (2010) 188 Taxman 172 (Del) • CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. (2007) 294 hR 310(DeI). The Ld. A.R. summing up his arguments on the technical grounds that the reassessment so framed is bad in law (i) for the non disposal of objection filed by the assessee by way of speaking order, (ii) disclosure of all material facts truly a…