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 367,296 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.

Jindal Steels, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 10(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2718/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P.George

For Appellant: Mr.B. Sagadevan, JCITFor Respondent: 20.06.2018
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234B

…there were no fresh tangible materials with the AO. Further, as per the Ld.AR, the AO had also failed to furnish the reasons for the re-opening. Relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., reported in 320 ITR 561 and GK Drive Shaft (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2002) 70 CCH 1264 ISCC Ld.AR submitted that the re-assessment done was bad in law. 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR strongly supporting the orders of the authorities below, submitted that the re-assessment was justified since assessee had claimed a Toyota Innova Car to be a commercial vehicle. As per the Ld.DR…

ITO 3(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Omega Investment & Properties Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 869/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

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

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…orrigendum to notification of 2011. 6. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also relying upon plethora of judgements including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) observed that the AO has 7 ITA 869 & 870/Mum/2016 reopened the assessment on change of opinion without there being any tangible material on record. Therefore, he quashed the re-assessment order passed by the AO. As regards deduction u/s 80IB(10), the CIT(A) deleted addition made by the AO by following his predecessor’s appellate order fo…

ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Meenakshi N Shah, Mumbai

ITA 7082/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

Section 68

…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)]. 7.28 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…

DCIT 7(1)-1, Mumbai vs. Goldmohur Design & Apparel Park Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 622/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, M/S Goldmohur Design & Circle-7(1)-1, Apparel Park Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.23, Ground Floor, Goldmohur Textile Mill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dadasaheb Phalke Road, M.K. Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400014 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aadcg1613M

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

…47(b) with reference to the term "information" and conceptually there is difference in scope and ambit of reopening provisions incorporated with effect from April 1, 1989. However, it was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) that the amended provisions are wider. What is important and relevant is that the principle of "change of opinion" was equally applicable under the un-amended provisions. The Supreme Court was, therefore, conscious of the said principle, when the observations mentioned above in A. L. A. Firm [1991] 189 ITR 285 were made. 2.15. Under the n…

A Naga Srinivas, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 944/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanshri A. Naga Srinivas Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad Tax, Circle 13(1) Pan: Aekpa5809H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri M.H. Naik, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…e, according to him, the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act on this ground, is nothing but on the change of the opinion which can be permitted not as held in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd reported in 320 ITR 561 (S.C) and also in the case S. Ranjith Reddy vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -6(1), Hyderabad reported in 144 ITD 461 (Hyd.) at paras 28 to 33. Therefore, according to him, the assessment order is not sustainable both on the legal ground as well as on merits. 6. The learned DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorit…

Deputy Director of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Sandvik A B., Pune

ITA 623/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak & S. SrinivasFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT & Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 151(2)

…n and it was further held that in case of assessment under section 143(1) of the Act, reason to believe can still be CO Nos.20 & 28/PUN/2015 challenged. He then, referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), wherein also it was held that reason to believe is necessary thing and the same should have like nexus with tangible material. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee then placed reliance on the Third Member decision in Telco Dadajee Dhackjee Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No.4613/Mum/2005, relating to assessment year 1998-99, order da…

Deputy Director of Income-Tax vs. Sandvik A B., Pune

ITA 608/PUN/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak & S. SrinivasFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT & Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 151(2)

…n and it was further held that in case of assessment under section 143(1) of the Act, reason to believe can still be CO Nos.20 & 28/PUN/2015 challenged. He then, referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), wherein also it was held that reason to believe is necessary thing and the same should have like nexus with tangible material. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee then placed reliance on the Third Member decision in Telco Dadajee Dhackjee Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No.4613/Mum/2005, relating to assessment year 1998-99, order da…

ACIT 29(1), Mumbai vs. Bharat B. Bhanushali, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2222/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swarup
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…the Assessing Officer losses jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. This aspect of the matter has been elaborately considered by the Ld.CIT(A) with reference to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M/s. Kelvinator of India Limited [320 ITR 561] and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. DCIT [362 ITR 403] and held that reopening of assessment by issue of notice u/s. 148 is not valid and hence bad in law. What we see is a mere change of opinion of the Assessing Officer to assessee the short term capital gain shown by the assessee as business incom…

ACIT 29(1), Mumbai vs. Dhaniji Bhanushali, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2221/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swarup
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…the Assessing Officer losses jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. This aspect of the matter has been elaborately considered by the Ld.CIT(A) with reference to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M/s. Kelvinator of India Limited [320 ITR 561] and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. DCIT [362 ITR 403] and held that reopening of assessment by issue of notice u/s. 148 is not valid and hence bad in law. What we see is a mere change of opinion of the Assessing Officer to assessee the short term capital gain shown by the assessee as business incom…

Mahindra Lifespace Developers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 1171/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K Pradhanmahindra Lifespace Developers Ltd. 5Th Floor, Mahindra Towers ……………. Appellant Worli, Mumbai 400 018 Pan – Aaacg8904C V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–6(3), Mumbai Mahindra Lifespace Developers Ltd. 5Th Floor, Mahindra Towers ……………. Appellant Worli, Mumbai 400 018 Pan – Aaacg8904C V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–6(3), Mumbai Assesseeby : Shri H.P. Mahajania/W Shri Prasad Bapat Revenue By : Smt. Arjugarodia

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajania/wFor Respondent: Smt. ArjuGarodia
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…mpletion of original assessment. That being the case, re–opening of assessment on a mere change of opinion is invalid. In support of his contention, learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC); and ii) Aroni Commercials Ltd. v/s DCIT, 2014–EIOL–200–HC–MUM–IT. i) The learned Departmental Representative strongly supporting the finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) submitted in the original assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has not at all enquired into or examined assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80IAB…

Kashinath Narayan Patil, Raigad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3, Mumbai, New Panvel

ITA 6767/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6767/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Omi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…owed an entry relating to cash payment of Rs.1,75,00,000/- to Shri KashinathNarayan Patil The conditions precedent to the exercise of the jurisdiction under section 147, therefore, did exist in the present case. In the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561 ) the Honourable Supreme Court has held that tangible material can entitle the Assessing Officer to take recourse to the power to reopen assessment. The reopening requires some factual material or information which can form the basis of "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment. Hence there was tangible material which entitled the AO…

Mehta Exports, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6036/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…l in the possession of AO at the time of recording of impugned reasons before he could proceed to record the reason for the reopening of the case while relying on the decision the of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561. The Tribunal has also considered the decision of Madhukar Khosla vs. ACIT (supra) whereas the decisions relied upon by the Revenue in the case of Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (supra) and Yuvraj vs. Union of India (supra) are distinguishable on facts and are not applicable. In the case of Export Credit Guarantee…

Sunil Vishram Chawda, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1433/HYD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1430, 1431, 1432 & 1433/Hyd/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 Sunil Vishram, Hyderabad. vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 10(1), PAN – AAMPM 3617 P Hyderabad. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K.A. Saiprasad Revenue by : Shri B. Suresh Babu Date of hearing 26/04/2018 Date of pronouncement 25/05/2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: These four appeals filed by the assessee are directed ag…

Sunil Vishram Chawda, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. CIT (OSD), Range-10, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1432/HYD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1430, 1431, 1432 & 1433/Hyd/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 Sunil Vishram, Hyderabad. vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 10(1), PAN – AAMPM 3617 P Hyderabad. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K.A. Saiprasad Revenue by : Shri B. Suresh Babu Date of hearing 26/04/2018 Date of pronouncement 25/05/2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: These four appeals filed by the assessee are directed ag…

Sunil Vishram Chawda, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1431/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1430, 1431, 1432 & 1433/Hyd/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 Sunil Vishram, Hyderabad. vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 10(1), PAN – AAMPM 3617 P Hyderabad. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K.A. Saiprasad Revenue by : Shri B. Suresh Babu Date of hearing 26/04/2018 Date of pronouncement 25/05/2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: These four appeals filed by the assessee are directed ag…

Sunil Vishram Chawda, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1430/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1430, 1431, 1432 & 1433/Hyd/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 Sunil Vishram, Hyderabad. vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 10(1), PAN – AAMPM 3617 P Hyderabad. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K.A. Saiprasad Revenue by : Shri B. Suresh Babu Date of hearing 26/04/2018 Date of pronouncement 25/05/2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: These four appeals filed by the assessee are directed ag…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Quality Sales Promotion Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection

ITA 5962/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2007-08 Acit, Central Circle- 30, Quality Sales Promotion Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 13, Ground Floor, Room No.5, Vs. B.B. Ganguli Street, Punarnava, Kolkata.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2007-08 ACIT, Central Circle- 30, Quality Sales Promotion Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 13, Ground Floor, Room No.5, Vs. B.B. Ganguli Street, Punarnava, Kolkata. PAN : AAACQ0466F (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.80/Del/2017 (In ITA No.5962/Del/2016) Assessment Year : 2007-08 Quality Sales Promotion Pvt. Ltd., ACIT, Central Circle- 30, 13, Ground Floor, Room No.5, New Delhi. B.B. Ganguli Street, Punarnava, Vs. Kolkata. PAN : AAACQ0466F (Appellant)…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Pavitra Trexim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection

ITA 5959/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2007-08 Acit, Central Circle- 30, Pavitra Trexim Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 13, Ground Floor, Room No.5, Vs. B.B. Ganguli Street, Punarnava, Kolkata.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2007-08 ACIT, Central Circle- 30, Pavitra Trexim Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 13, Ground Floor, Room No.5, Vs. B.B. Ganguli Street, Punarnava, Kolkata. PAN : AABCP5170C (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.79/Del/2017 (In ITA No.5959/Del/2016) Assessment Year : 2007-08 Pavitra Trexim Pvt. Ltd., ACIT, Central Circle- 30, 13, Ground Floor, Room No.5, New Delhi. B.B. Ganguli Street, Punarnava, Vs. Kolkata. PAN : AABCP5170C (Appellant) (Respondent) :…

M/S. Aditya Birla Health Services Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 248/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.248/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jha & Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14A

…d to re-assess the concealment of income, Ld. A.R. submitted that the Assessing Officer he has no power to re-assess and a reference is made to the binding judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd reported as 320 ITR 561 (SC). Bringing our attention to page 1 to 4 of the paper book, the ld. Counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer issued detailed questionnaire appending notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) commonly dated 20.11.2009 and demonstrated that the issue relating to pre operative expenses was already being examined. Bringing our attention to questionn…

Amsri Constructions Private Limited, Secunderabad, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 121/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Amsri Builders Pvt. Vs. The Dy. Cit, Central Ltd., Secunderabad. Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca2834R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Amsri Constructions Vs. The Dy. Cit, Central Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad. Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aafca5309Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri K.C Devdas Revenue By : Smt. B.K Vishnu Priya Date Of Hearing : 06-03-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-05-2018 Order Per P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

For Appellant: Shri K.C DevdasFor Respondent: Smt. B.K Vishnu Priya
Section 147Section 148

…e submitted that even where the assessments are completed u/s 143(1) there has to be tangible material for the A.O to reopen the assessment u/s 148 of the Act, he placed reliance upon the following decisions: 1) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India, reported in [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). 2) CIT Vs. Atul Kumar Swami, reported in [2014] 362 ITR 693 (Delhi). 3) Ratna Trayi Reality Services Pvt Ltd., Vs. ITO, reported in [2013] 356 ITR 493 (Guj). 4) CIT Vs. Orient Craft Ltd. reported in (2013) 354 IR 536 (Delhi). 6. Further, he submitted that the A.O has not brought any income to tax even in the reassessment proceedings and th…