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 367,182 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.

DCIT, Circle-16(2), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Astrix Laboratories Ltd., Hyd, Secunderabad

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

ITA 662/HYD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Smt. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 92C

…the opinion, a ITA Nos. 625 & 662/Hyd/2016 :- 4 -: position not permissible under the statute. Assessee relied on the CBDT Circular No. 549 dated 31-10-1989 and Hon'ble Supreme Court's land mark decision in the case of CIT V Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) (320 ITR 561), where it was held that, “Reassessment proceedings cannot be based on change of opinion and it cannot be a substitute for Reason to believe u/s. 147 of the Act”. 2.4. Assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 17,27,96,203/- on Technical Know-how and Drug Master Files (DMF) @ 25% acquired from Mylan on the WDV of Rs 69,11,84,813/- as on 01-04-2007. T…

Mylan Laboratories Ltd, (Being the Amalgamated Company of Astrix Laboratories Limited), Hyd Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

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

ITA 625/HYD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Smt. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 92C

…the opinion, a ITA Nos. 625 & 662/Hyd/2016 :- 4 -: position not permissible under the statute. Assessee relied on the CBDT Circular No. 549 dated 31-10-1989 and Hon'ble Supreme Court's land mark decision in the case of CIT V Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) (320 ITR 561), where it was held that, “Reassessment proceedings cannot be based on change of opinion and it cannot be a substitute for Reason to believe u/s. 147 of the Act”. 2.4. Assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 17,27,96,203/- on Technical Know-how and Drug Master Files (DMF) @ 25% acquired from Mylan on the WDV of Rs 69,11,84,813/- as on 01-04-2007. T…

Padmini Chand, Hyderabad, Secunderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 1620/HYD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devismt. Padmini Chand Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 6(1) Pan: Aaipc 2110 R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Rajini Chand Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 6(1) Pan: Aaipc 2105 J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Rama Krishna Bandi, DR
Section 147Section 148

…guments on the validity of the re- assessment proceedings: i) Hon'ble ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT in the case of Amar Nath Agrawal Versus Commissioner of Income Tax & Another [2015] 371 ITR 183 (All.) ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator India 320 ITR 561 (S.C) 9. He further submitted that while the assessee’s did not file their returns of income, they have filed the returns in response to the notice u/s 148 on 23.3.2010, on 13.09.2010 whereas the suit for cancellation of the sale deed was filed as far as back as 2005 and therefore, it cannot be considered as an afterthought. He also drew our att…

Income Tax Officer Ward No.16(2) vs. M/S Techspan India Private Ltd.(Formerly Known As M/S. Techspan India Ltd.) Through Its Managing Dir

C.A. No.-002732-002732 - 2007Supreme Court24 Apr 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154

…particular 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:- “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 "reason to believe"….. Sec…

DCIT - 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Noshir D. Talati, Mumbai

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

ITA 2306/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. C.I.T – 8(3)(1) V. Noshir D. Talati Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, 96-D, Villa Modern, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Worli Sea Face, Worli, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 018 Pan No: Aaapt 6890 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.295/Mum/2017 [Arising Out Of Ita No.2306/Mum/2016 (A.Y: 2008-09)] Noshir D. Talati V. Dy. C.I.T – 8(3)(1) 96-D, Villa Modern, Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, Worli Sea Face, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai-400 020 Pan No: Aaapt 6890 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ld that reopening of assessment is mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer and following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 4 ITA NO.2306/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2008-09 CO NO.295/MUM/2017 Noshir D. Talati CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [320 ITR 561] he held that reopening of the assessment is invalid. 5. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. DR supported the orders of the Assessing Officer. 6. We have heard the rival submissions perused the orders of the authorities below. On a perusal of the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3…

Ananda Paul, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-50, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands are allowed

ITA 165/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 Ananda Paul V/S. Acit, Circle-50, Cf-125, Salt Lake City, Manicktala Civic Centre, Kolkata-64 Uttarpan Complex, Ds- [Pan No.Afkpp 2201 D] 2&3, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasagupta, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxii, Kolkata Dated 05.11.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-50 Kolkata U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 30.12.2011 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Shri, S.K. Tulsiyan, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri S. Dasgupta, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) That On The Fats & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Treating The Re-Assessment Proceeding U/S 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 As Invalid, Bad In Law, Unjust & Contrary To The Facts & Law. 2) That On The Facts & In Respect To The Circumstances Of Thee Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 By The Ld. Ao As Proper & Valid Without Considering The

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 19(38)

…iation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act on the same set of documents is nothing but mere change of opinion. In this regard we find support and guidance from the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. Reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) wherein it has been 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, the Assessing Officer has to have reas…

DCIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sheba Properties Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals stands dismissed

ITA 699/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 660 To 664/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13) Tata Motors Finance Limited Dy. Cit (Osd), 2(3) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Known As Sheba Properties बनाम/ Limited) M. K. Marg, Mumbai -400 020 10Th Floor, 106A & B, Maker Chambers Vs. Iii, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 699 To 703/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12) Dy. Cit, Circle-2(3)(2), Tata Motors Finance Limited Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sheba बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Properties Limited) 3Rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya, 18 Mumbai -400 020 Vs. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. R. Vohra & Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin

For Appellant: Shri R. R. Vohra &For Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 23Section 23(1)(a)

…A.O. merely based on change in opinion and therefore the reassessment order based on change in opinion is bad in law and is liable to be quashed, The appellant has relied on several judicial pronouncements including the decisions in Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), Foramer v. CIT (247 ITR 436), Idea Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT (301 ITR 407), Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT (308 ITR 195), ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT (25 Taxmann.com 241) etc. 4,4 I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the appellant. I have also gone through the decisions relied on by the Ld. AR. I have also gone through…

Sheba Properties Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals stands dismissed

ITA 660/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 660 To 664/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13) Tata Motors Finance Limited Dy. Cit (Osd), 2(3) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Known As Sheba Properties बनाम/ Limited) M. K. Marg, Mumbai -400 020 10Th Floor, 106A & B, Maker Chambers Vs. Iii, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 699 To 703/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12) Dy. Cit, Circle-2(3)(2), Tata Motors Finance Limited Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sheba बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Properties Limited) 3Rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya, 18 Mumbai -400 020 Vs. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. R. Vohra & Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin

For Appellant: Shri R. R. Vohra &For Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 23Section 23(1)(a)

…A.O. merely based on change in opinion and therefore the reassessment order based on change in opinion is bad in law and is liable to be quashed, The appellant has relied on several judicial pronouncements including the decisions in Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), Foramer v. CIT (247 ITR 436), Idea Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT (301 ITR 407), Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT (308 ITR 195), ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT (25 Taxmann.com 241) etc. 4,4 I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the appellant. I have also gone through the decisions relied on by the Ld. AR. I have also gone through…

M/S. Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 341/CTK/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(2)Section 154Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40

…Officer at the time of assessment proceedings amounts to change of opinion and, therefore, the reopening is bad in law for which he supported his arguments by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC). 4 Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd He also relied on the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal rendered in the case of the assessee itself in ITA Nos.47 & 48/CTK/2014 and ITA Nos.73 & 74/CTK/2014 for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 order dated 25.10.2017 and argued that on the very same set of facts, the Tribunal has cancelled…

Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Dict, Corporate Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 311/CTK/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(2)Section 154Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40

…Officer at the time of assessment proceedings amounts to change of opinion and, therefore, the reopening is bad in law for which he supported his arguments by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC). 4 Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd He also relied on the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal rendered in the case of the assessee itself in ITA Nos.47 & 48/CTK/2014 and ITA Nos.73 & 74/CTK/2014 for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 order dated 25.10.2017 and argued that on the very same set of facts, the Tribunal has cancelled…

Amolika Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -9(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 505/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 505 & 506/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08&2008-09)

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, ARFor Respondent: Sh. M. C. Omi
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…w tangible material on record before the Assessing Officer, and in the absence of any new tangible material on record, the order of the Assessing Officer for reopening is bad in law as has been held in the following judgments. i) Kelvinator India Ltd., (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii) Kalvinator of India Ltd., (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del HC) iii) Amitabh Bachchan, (2012) 349 ITR 76 (Bom HC) iv) 11 I.T.A. No. 505 & 506/Mum/2018 Amolika Constructions Pvt. Ltd. CartiniIndia Ltd., (2009) 314 ITR 275 (Bom HC) v) Asian Paints Ltd., (2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom HC). Furthermore, we observe that the reasons recorded by the AO nowhere s…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-8 vs. Shyam Antenna Electronic Ltd

ITA/44/2018HC Delhi17 Apr 2018

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

Section 143(3)

…eferred expenditure could not have been allowed in the manner originally under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. This Court notices that the ITAT relied upon the seminal ruling of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator, (2010) 320 ITR 561 and the subsequent holdings to rule that in the absence of tangible material outside the assessment records or positive indication that the assessee had concealed the material particulars when it filed its returns, re-assessment could not be resorted to. That formulation squarely applies to the facts of this case because the assessee’s orig…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-8 vs. Shyam Antenna Electronic Ltd

ITA/46/2018HC Delhi17 Apr 2018

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

Section 143(3)

…eferred expenditure could not have been allowed in the manner originally under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. This Court notices that the ITAT relied upon the seminal ruling of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator, (2010) 320 ITR 561 and the subsequent holdings to rule that in the absence of tangible material outside the assessment records or positive indication that the assessee had concealed the material particulars when it filed its returns, re-assessment could not be resorted to. That formulation squarely applies to the facts of this case because the assessee’s orig…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-8 vs. Shyam Antenna Electronic Ltd

ITA/47/2018HC Delhi17 Apr 2018

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

Section 143(3)

…eferred expenditure could not have been allowed in the manner originally under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. This Court notices that the ITAT relied upon the seminal ruling of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator, (2010) 320 ITR 561 and the subsequent holdings to rule that in the absence of tangible material outside the assessment records or positive indication that the assessee had concealed the material particulars when it filed its returns, re-assessment could not be resorted to. That formulation squarely applies to the facts of this case because the assessee’s orig…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-8 vs. Shyam Antenna Electronic Ltd

ITA/45/2018HC Delhi17 Apr 2018

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

Section 143(3)

…eferred expenditure could not have been allowed in the manner originally under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. This Court notices that the ITAT relied upon the seminal ruling of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator, (2010) 320 ITR 561 and the subsequent holdings to rule that in the absence of tangible material outside the assessment records or positive indication that the assessee had concealed the material particulars when it filed its returns, re-assessment could not be resorted to. That formulation squarely applies to the facts of this case because the assessee’s orig…

Latha Sundar, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1393/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1393, 1394 & 1395/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Ruby George, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ficer. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, the reassessment attempted was based on a mere change of opinion. Relying on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex in the case of CIT vs. Foramer France,(2003) 264 ITR 566 and CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd, (2010) 320 ITR 561 and that of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mobis India Ltd vs. DCIT, (2016) 380 OTR 170 and that of CIT vs. Premier Mills Ltd, (2008) 296 ITR 157, ld. Authorised Representative argued that reopening done for the impugned assessment years were bad in law. ITA Nos.1393 to 1395/2017 :- 6 -: 6. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representat…

M/S. Monotype Sales Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2339/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 2339/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Monotype Agencies Pvt. Ltd................................……………………………………..Appellant 5, Middleton Street, Kolkata – 700 071. [Pan: Aadcm 2055 R] I.T.O. Ward 8(1) Kolkata,...................……………………………………………...............Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Ghayas Uddin, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 22, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 04, 2018

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…of same material and the said reopening thus was bad in law as the same was made on the basis of change of opinion. In support of this contention, he has relied inter alia on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561. He has also placed on record a copy of reasons recorded by the A.O. which read as under: “In the instant case, the return of income for A.Y. 2006-07 was filed declaring a total income of Rs. 97,275/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on determining total income of Rs. 97,280/-. Later on perusal of the records reveals that the assessee had…

M/S. Madhuri Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2338/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 2338/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Madhuri Marketing Pvt. Ltd................................……………………………………Appellant 5, Middleton Street, Kolkata – 700 071. [Pan: Aabcm 7279 D] I.T.O. Ward 8(1) Kolkata,...................……………………………………………...............Respondent P-7,Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Ghayas Uddin, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 22, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 04, 2018

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…of same material and the said reopening thus was bad in law as the same was made on the basis of change of opinion. In support of this contention, he has relied inter alia on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561. He has also placed on record a copy of reasons recorded by the A.O. which read as under: “In the instant case, the return of income for A.Y. 2006-07 was filed declaring a total loss of Rs. 37,486/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on accepting the returned income as filed by the assessee- company. Later on perusal of the records reveals…

M/S. Best Luck Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2337/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 2337/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Best Luck Developers Pvt. Ltd................................……………………………….Appellant 5, Middleton Street, Kolkata – 700 071. [Pan: Aabcb 2930 J] I.T.O. Ward 8(1) Kolkata,...................……………………………………………............Respondent P-7,Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Ghayas Uddin, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 22, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 04, 2018

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…of same material and the said reopening thus was bad in law as the same was made on the basis of change of opinion. In support of this contention, he has relied inter alia on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561. He has also placed on record a copy of reasons recorded by the A.O. which read as under: “In the instant case, the return of income for A.Y. 2006-07 was filed declaring a total income of Rs. 97,980/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on accepting the returned income as filed by the assessee- company. Later on perusal of the records reveal…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Pampac Machines P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3818/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Manish V.Shah and Ms. Niyanta MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 153ASection 254(1)

…g notice u/s.148 of the Act.In other words,same material was used to initiate the reassessment proceedings.Thus,it is a case of mere change of opinion.We would like to rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Kelvinator India (320 ITR 561).In that matter the Court had 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, the Assessing Officer has to have r…