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 367,322 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.

Idhasoft Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5139/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…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)]. 2.30. 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…

Shri Ajay Wahi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

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

ITA 336/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jul 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 336/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10. cuke Shri Ajay Wahi, The ACIT, Vs. Dr. Wahi’s Diagnostic Clinic, Circle-1, A-5, Chandpole, Jhotwara Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AABPW 0826 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Dilip Shivpuri (Advocate) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Seema…

M/S. Cygnus Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2288/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, A.M & Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M]

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

…whether or not they are germane to the formation of belief that income escaped assessment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court endorsing the Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 held in its order reported in 320 ITR 561, “…..that Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is “tangible material” to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have link with the formation of belief.” Therefore, if the fresh tangible material which the AO has in his possession is relevant to have nexus to the formation of belief…

The Dy. CIT, Circle - 2(1), Vijayawada vs. Sri C.D.S.Prakasa Rao, L/H. C.D.V. Subba Rao, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 44/VIZ/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.44/Viz/2013 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2006-07) Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Vs. C.D.V. Subba Rao Vijayawada Lr Of Late C.D.S. Prakasa Rao Prop.Prakash Arts, [Pan :Adapc2488D] Museum Road Governorpet Vijayawada [Pan : Adkpc7450P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R.S.Aravindakshan, Dr प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar

For Appellant: Shri R.S.Aravindakshan, DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 436oSection 43B

…hange of opinion, hence invalid. The Ld.CIT(A) agreed with the view of assessee that reopening of assessment was made on change of opinion and accordingly quashed the notice issued u/s 148. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 561(SC) and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. 256 ITR 1(Del.). 4 Sri C.D.S.Subba Rao, L/R of Sri C.D.S.Prakasa Rao, Vijayawada 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the revenue has taken up the matter before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : a. The Ld. CIT(A) erred both in law…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4717/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. G.D. Agrawal & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ad been wrongly upheld by the Ld. CIT (A). Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (Delhi) reported in 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that the AO has the power to reopen a completed assessment provided there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income. Reliance was also placed on another judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. reported in 348 ITR…

M/S. Halcrow Group Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5554/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5163/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sumit Lal Chandani &For Respondent: Sh. G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 148Section 154Section 234ASection 44DSection 9

…Vs Batra Bhatta Company (2010) 321 ITR 526 (Del.) " Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel Vs ITO (2011) 56 DTR 212 (Guj.) " CIT Vs Orient Craft Ltd. in SLP CC No. 1589/2013 (SC) " CIT Vs Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Del.) " CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) " Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.) " Mohan Gupta (HUF) Vs CIT (2014) 366 ITR 115 (Del.) " Ranbaxy Laboratories Vs DCIT (2013) 351 ITR 023 (Del.) " Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (2011) 343 ITR 141 (Del.) " NYK Line (India) Ltd. Vs DCIT (2013) 346 ITR 361 (Bom.) " CIT Vs Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR…

ACIT Cir 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Chemical Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed is dismissed

ITA 5650/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Circle-2(3)(1), M/S Tata Chemical Ltd. R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, Bombay House, 24, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabct4059M Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. S. Padmaja, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Atul T. Suraiya, Ar Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Atul T. Suraiya, ARFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2004-05 ACIT Circle-2(3)(1), M/s Tata Chemical Ltd. R. No. 552, 5th floor, Bombay House, 24, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AABCT4059M Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Ms. S. Padmaja, DR Assessee by : Mr. Atul T. Suraiya, AR Date of Hearing : 18/04/2018 Date of pronouncement : 28/06/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The relevant assessment year is 200…

Jilco Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3409/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Ominingsen, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…and therefore prayed before the Bench that the assessment as framed by the AO should be knocked down on the basis of change of opinion. In defence of his argument the Ld. A.R. relied on a series of decisions namely; (a) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) (b) CIT vs. Foramer France [2003] 264 ITR 566 (SC) (c) CIT vs. Corporation Bank Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 791 (SC) (d) CIT vs. Andhra Bank Ltd. [1997] 225 ITR 447 (SC). The another alternative plea taken by the Ld. A.R. was that the proceedings under section 148 read with section 147 of the Act were initiated on the basis of objection filed by au…

DCIT, Cir.-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2146/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…aw because AO does not have power to review his own order. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the action of the AO is nothing but change of opinion which is not permissible as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “The concept of “change of opinion” on the part of the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment does not stand obliterated after the substitution of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Acts, 1987 and 1989. After the amendment, 2 3 Bharat Bhari Udyog Nig…

ADIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sanjiv Ghai, New Delhi

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 5868/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K. Narasimha Charyi.T.A. Nos.5681 To 5686/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surinder Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 194J

…enses whatsoever, as such, mere statement that there is gap between gross receipts and net receipts, is not a ground to seek reopening of the proceedings. 15. Further, basing on the decisions reported in the case of (i)CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561(SC); (ii)IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd Vs ACIT (2011) 332 ITR 587 (BOM.); (iii) CIT Vs Orient Craft Ltd. ITA No. 555 / 2012 dated 12.12.2012; (iv) CIT Vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 233 ITR (Del.) 69 - Delhi High Court; (v) CIT Vs Smt. Paramjit Kaur (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H); (vi) GKN Driveshafts (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (2003) 259 ITR…

ADIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sanjiv Ghai, New Delhi

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 5867/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K. Narasimha Charyi.T.A. Nos.5681 To 5686/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surinder Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 194J

…enses whatsoever, as such, mere statement that there is gap between gross receipts and net receipts, is not a ground to seek reopening of the proceedings. 15. Further, basing on the decisions reported in the case of (i)CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561(SC); (ii)IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd Vs ACIT (2011) 332 ITR 587 (BOM.); (iii) CIT Vs Orient Craft Ltd. ITA No. 555 / 2012 dated 12.12.2012; (iv) CIT Vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 233 ITR (Del.) 69 - Delhi High Court; (v) CIT Vs Smt. Paramjit Kaur (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H); (vi) GKN Driveshafts (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (2003) 259 ITR…

ADIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sanjiv Ghai, New Delhi

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 5866/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K. Narasimha Charyi.T.A. Nos.5681 To 5686/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surinder Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 194J

…enses whatsoever, as such, mere statement that there is gap between gross receipts and net receipts, is not a ground to seek reopening of the proceedings. 15. Further, basing on the decisions reported in the case of (i)CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561(SC); (ii)IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd Vs ACIT (2011) 332 ITR 587 (BOM.); (iii) CIT Vs Orient Craft Ltd. ITA No. 555 / 2012 dated 12.12.2012; (iv) CIT Vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 233 ITR (Del.) 69 - Delhi High Court; (v) CIT Vs Smt. Paramjit Kaur (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H); (vi) GKN Driveshafts (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (2003) 259 ITR…

ADIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sanjiv Ghai, New Delhi

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 5865/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K. Narasimha Charyi.T.A. Nos.5681 To 5686/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surinder Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 194J

…enses whatsoever, as such, mere statement that there is gap between gross receipts and net receipts, is not a ground to seek reopening of the proceedings. 15. Further, basing on the decisions reported in the case of (i)CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561(SC); (ii)IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd Vs ACIT (2011) 332 ITR 587 (BOM.); (iii) CIT Vs Orient Craft Ltd. ITA No. 555 / 2012 dated 12.12.2012; (iv) CIT Vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 233 ITR (Del.) 69 - Delhi High Court; (v) CIT Vs Smt. Paramjit Kaur (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H); (vi) GKN Driveshafts (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (2003) 259 ITR…

ADIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sanjiv Ghai, New Delhi

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 5864/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K. Narasimha Charyi.T.A. Nos.5681 To 5686/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surinder Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 194J

…enses whatsoever, as such, mere statement that there is gap between gross receipts and net receipts, is not a ground to seek reopening of the proceedings. 15. Further, basing on the decisions reported in the case of (i)CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561(SC); (ii)IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd Vs ACIT (2011) 332 ITR 587 (BOM.); (iii) CIT Vs Orient Craft Ltd. ITA No. 555 / 2012 dated 12.12.2012; (iv) CIT Vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 233 ITR (Del.) 69 - Delhi High Court; (v) CIT Vs Smt. Paramjit Kaur (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H); (vi) GKN Driveshafts (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (2003) 259 ITR…

Shri Sanjiv Ghai, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 5686/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K. Narasimha Charyi.T.A. Nos.5681 To 5686/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surinder Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 194J

…enses whatsoever, as such, mere statement that there is gap between gross receipts and net receipts, is not a ground to seek reopening of the proceedings. 15. Further, basing on the decisions reported in the case of (i)CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561(SC); (ii)IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd Vs ACIT (2011) 332 ITR 587 (BOM.); (iii) CIT Vs Orient Craft Ltd. ITA No. 555 / 2012 dated 12.12.2012; (iv) CIT Vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 233 ITR (Del.) 69 - Delhi High Court; (v) CIT Vs Smt. Paramjit Kaur (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H); (vi) GKN Driveshafts (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (2003) 259 ITR…

Shri Sanjiv Ghai, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 5685/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K. Narasimha Charyi.T.A. Nos.5681 To 5686/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surinder Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 194J

…enses whatsoever, as such, mere statement that there is gap between gross receipts and net receipts, is not a ground to seek reopening of the proceedings. 15. Further, basing on the decisions reported in the case of (i)CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561(SC); (ii)IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd Vs ACIT (2011) 332 ITR 587 (BOM.); (iii) CIT Vs Orient Craft Ltd. ITA No. 555 / 2012 dated 12.12.2012; (iv) CIT Vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 233 ITR (Del.) 69 - Delhi High Court; (v) CIT Vs Smt. Paramjit Kaur (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H); (vi) GKN Driveshafts (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (2003) 259 ITR…

Shri Sanjiv Ghai, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 5684/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K. Narasimha Charyi.T.A. Nos.5681 To 5686/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surinder Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 194J

…enses whatsoever, as such, mere statement that there is gap between gross receipts and net receipts, is not a ground to seek reopening of the proceedings. 15. Further, basing on the decisions reported in the case of (i)CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561(SC); (ii)IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd Vs ACIT (2011) 332 ITR 587 (BOM.); (iii) CIT Vs Orient Craft Ltd. ITA No. 555 / 2012 dated 12.12.2012; (iv) CIT Vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 233 ITR (Del.) 69 - Delhi High Court; (v) CIT Vs Smt. Paramjit Kaur (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H); (vi) GKN Driveshafts (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (2003) 259 ITR…

Shri Sanjiv Ghai, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 5683/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K. Narasimha Charyi.T.A. Nos.5681 To 5686/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surinder Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 194J

…enses whatsoever, as such, mere statement that there is gap between gross receipts and net receipts, is not a ground to seek reopening of the proceedings. 15. Further, basing on the decisions reported in the case of (i)CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561(SC); (ii)IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd Vs ACIT (2011) 332 ITR 587 (BOM.); (iii) CIT Vs Orient Craft Ltd. ITA No. 555 / 2012 dated 12.12.2012; (iv) CIT Vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 233 ITR (Del.) 69 - Delhi High Court; (v) CIT Vs Smt. Paramjit Kaur (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H); (vi) GKN Driveshafts (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (2003) 259 ITR…

Shri Sanjiv Ghai, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 5682/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K. Narasimha Charyi.T.A. Nos.5681 To 5686/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surinder Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 194J

…enses whatsoever, as such, mere statement that there is gap between gross receipts and net receipts, is not a ground to seek reopening of the proceedings. 15. Further, basing on the decisions reported in the case of (i)CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561(SC); (ii)IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd Vs ACIT (2011) 332 ITR 587 (BOM.); (iii) CIT Vs Orient Craft Ltd. ITA No. 555 / 2012 dated 12.12.2012; (iv) CIT Vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 233 ITR (Del.) 69 - Delhi High Court; (v) CIT Vs Smt. Paramjit Kaur (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H); (vi) GKN Driveshafts (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (2003) 259 ITR…

Shri Sanjiv Ghai, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 5681/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K. Narasimha Charyi.T.A. Nos.5681 To 5686/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surinder Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 194J

…enses whatsoever, as such, mere statement that there is gap between gross receipts and net receipts, is not a ground to seek reopening of the proceedings. 15. Further, basing on the decisions reported in the case of (i)CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561(SC); (ii)IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd Vs ACIT (2011) 332 ITR 587 (BOM.); (iii) CIT Vs Orient Craft Ltd. ITA No. 555 / 2012 dated 12.12.2012; (iv) CIT Vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 233 ITR (Del.) 69 - Delhi High Court; (v) CIT Vs Smt. Paramjit Kaur (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H); (vi) GKN Driveshafts (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (2003) 259 ITR…