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 367,181 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.

Kores (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 41, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2513/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri D.T. Garasia, Judicial Member and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 2512 & 2513/Mum/2014 (Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/s. Kores (India) Ltd. ACIT, Central Circle - 41 301/302 Ashford Chambers Mumbai Vs. L.J. Road, Mahin West Mumbai 400016 PAN – AAACK5069Q Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Mani Jain Respondent by: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Date of Hearing: 10.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 13.02.2018 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM These appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of the CIT(A)-38, M…

Kores (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 41, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2512/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 43B

Baijnath Melaram, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7000/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramt Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Baijnath Melaram, Acit, Range-14(3), C/O Mangaldas D. Shah & Co., बनाम/ Mumbai. 506, Lotus House, 5Th Floor, Vs. 33-A, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaafb 2675 E याजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Dhirendra M. Shah - Ar यनधाारयती की ओर से / Revenue By Shri T.A. Khan - Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2018 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh ()

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 194C

…147(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. 4.16. Another aspec…

ACIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Monarch Innovative Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4815/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4815/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिाम/ Acit,Circle 2(2)(2) M/S. Monarch Innovative R.No. 545, 5 T H Floor, Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Monarch House, Master V. M.K. Road Mind-Ii, Aarey Colony, Churchgate, Mayur Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Goregoan(E), Mumbai 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaccm6709P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Surji ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Tiwari

Section 115Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…gible material before the AO, hence reopening of the assessment merely on change of opinion or to review completed assessment without any material facts does not confer jurisdiction of reassessment in view of the decision in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator Ltd. 320 ITR 561. Further it is also clear on perusal of original assessment that AO had considered the revised return and also Form No. 10CCB and raised a query. After raising the query AO recomputed the 80IC deduction claimed by the appellant. In such a situation Bombay High Court in the case of GNK Sinter Metals Ltd. v. Ms. Ramapriya Raghvan, acit(2015) 114 dt…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed and cross

ITA 334/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

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

…risdiction and patently illegal. The ld. AR has then relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd. 127 DTR 161 as well as decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of Indian Ltd. 320 ITR 561 and submitted that when there was no 5 ITA No. 334 & CO.No. 04 /JP/2016 ACIT vs. M/s Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur material with the AO so as to constitute the reason to belief that the income has escaped assessment then, reopening is not valid. The ld. AR has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has reli…

Export Import Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6847/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2003-04 Export Import Bank Of Acit-3(1), India, Centre One Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Building, Floor 21, World, Road Trade Centre Complex, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 Pan No. Aaace2769D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Dinesh Vyas, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Mrs. Vidisha Kalra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Dinesh Vyas, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Vidisha Kalra, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…re change of opinion by the AO. In this regard he placed reliance inter alia on the decision in CIT v. Foramer France (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC), Desai Brothers v. DCIT 272 ITR 335 (Bom), Bhor Industries v. ACIT 267 ITR 161 (Bom), CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC), Cartini India Ltd. v. ACIT 314 ITR 275 (Bom). The Ld. counsel filed a Paper Book (P/B) and drew our attention to (i) computation of total income for the year ended 31.03.2003 along with Annexure ‘B’ and Note 10 and 11, (ii) notice u/s 142(1) & 143(2) issued by the AO on 09.09.2005 along with questionnaire, (iii) letter dated 14.11.2005 file…

Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle I(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2028/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Nrs Ganesan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 2027 & 2028/Chny/2017 Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals(P) Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-I(3), Chennai [Pan: Aaacc1356 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundararaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : CHENNAI [Before Hon’ble Shri NRS Ganesan, JM & Hon’ble Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A Nos. 2027 & 2028/CHNY/2017 Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals(P) Ltd. -vs- ACIT, Circle-I(3), Chennai [PAN: AAACC1356 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri S. Sundararaman, CA For the Revenue : Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT Date of Hearing : 17.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 08.02.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. These appeals by the Assessee arise out of the common orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5…

Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle I(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2027/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundararaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 143(3)

DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eih Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the cross objection is allowed and the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1707/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1707/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2006-07 D.C.I.T., Circle-8(1) -Vs.- M/S Eih Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaace 6898 B] (Respondent) (Appellant) C.O.No.62/Kol/2016 (A/O I.T.A No. 1707/Kol/2016 ) Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Eih Ltd. -Vs- D.C.I.T., Circle-8(1) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaace 6898 B] (Respondent) (Cross Objector) For The Department : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) For The Assessee : Shri A.K.Gupta, Fca Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2018. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…1707/Kol/2016 & C.O.No.62/Kol/2016 M/s EIH Ltd. A.Yr.2006-07 12. In the light of the above facts with regard to recording of reasons, let us examine settled position of law on this issue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC), has held that for reopening of the assessment, the AO should have in its possession ‘tangible material’. The term ‘tangible material’ has been understood and explained by various courts subsequently. There has been unanimity of the courts on this issue that in absence of fresh material indicating escaped income, the AO cannot assume jurisdi…

The Berhampur Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd., Berhampur vs. DCIT, Berhampur Circle, Berhampur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 279/CTK/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37

…nd accepted by him and no new tangible material had come to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer to evidence the fact of escapement of income chargeable to tax of the assessee. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC) has held that the concept of “change of opinion” must be treated as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen an assessment, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reas…

Wadhawan Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2662/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…1 ITA 2662/Mum/2017 2361/Mum/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”,MUMBAI Before Shri Mahavir Singh (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Shri G Manjunatha (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A No.2662/Mum/2017 (Assessment year: 2009-10) M/s Wadhwan Holdings Pvt vs ACIT, Cent.Cir.5(4), Mumbai Ltd, HDIL Towers, 4th Floor Dheeraj Arma, Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra (E) Mumbai-51 PAN : AAACW5001G APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT I.T.A No.2361/Mum/2017 (Assessment year: 2009-10) Dy.CIT, Cent.Cir.5(4), vs M/s Wadhwan Holdings Pvt Ltd, HDIL Towers, 4th Floor Mumbai Dheeraj Arma, Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra (E) Mumbai-51 PAN : AAACW5001G…

SHI vs. U Canadian Clear Waters Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 2347/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2347/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ruby George, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…. 11. The phrase reason to believe in section 147 relates to such other new or tangible material as may have come to the knowledge of the assessing officer pursuant to the original proceedings for assessment. The Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India (320 ITR 561) states thus in the context of the beliefthat should form the basis for a re-assessment; 14 I.T.A. No.2347/Mds/17 “We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review, he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on fulfillment of certa…

Maharashtra Stae Road Development Corporation Td, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 4900/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 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. 2.17. Under the ne…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4519/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

Asst Cirt 32(3), Mumbai vs. Rajrani S. Gupta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3874/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am The Assistant Commissioner Rajrani S Gupta Of Income Tax-32(3), 11-C, Lancelot Chsl, Sv Room No. 108, 1St Floor, Bldg. Road, Borivali(W), No. C-11, Pratyakshakar Mumbai-400 092 Vs. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400 051 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aadpg1333P

For Appellant: S. L. Jain, ARFor Respondent: M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…done the view taken by the AO on a subsequent assessment will be a mere change of opinion. Such change of opinion cannot be a reason to reopen as has been decided by the honorable supreme court of India in the case of CIT 7 v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561. It has been held by the jurisdictional Bombay high court in the case of United Shippers Ltd. v. ACIT 371 ITR 441(2015) that in absence of any failure on part of assessee to make full and true disclosure of all material facts the AO cannot initiate reassessment proceedings after expiry of 4 years from end of the relevant assessment year merely on…

Total Lubricants India Ltd ( Now Known As Total Oil India P. Ltd ), Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA o

ITA 7021/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

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

…g the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ganshyam K Khabrani vs ACIT 346 ITE 443 (Bom). The following case laws are also relied upon by the Ld.AR:- i. Motital Todi vs ACIT ITA No.2910/Mum/2013 (Mum Trib) ii. CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd 320 ITR 561 (SC) iii.ICICI Hom Finance Co. Ltd vs ACIT (210 Taxman 47 (Bom) iv. Asian Paints Ltd vs DCIT 308 ITR 195 (Bom) v. Cartini India Ltd vs ACIT 179 Taxman 157 (Bom) vi. DSJ Communication Ltd vs DCIT 222 Taxman 129 (Bom) 5. Insofar as addition made by the AO towards provision for energy expenses, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has made pro…

M/S Sapna Investments, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2203/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Anand, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…ollowing decisions wherein it is held that, on a mere change in opinion the provisions of section 147 of the act, cannot be invoked. i) Rallies India Ltd Vs. ACIT & Another (2010) 323 ITR 54 (Bom) ii) CIT Vs. (i) Kelvinator of India Ltd (ii) Eicher Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). iii) Asian Paints Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Another (2009) 223 CTR 141 (Bom) iv) CIT Vs. Younus Kunju (1997) 228 ITR 147 (Kerala) 11. The appellant craves permission to add, delete or alter any of the grounds at the time of hearing.” Page 3 of 4 3. The ld. AR of assessee submitted that in the present case, proviso to sect…

The Bharat Cooperative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) -1, Mumbai

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

ITA 3853/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 292B

…lowing Rs.1,16,71,677/- on account of broken period interest by reopening the assessment u/s 148 of Income Tax Act 1961 by mere change of opinion after a gap of four years, which is bad in law as per the judgment of SC in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561 SC), even though objections were raised in this regard by the Appellant u/s 292BB. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in confirming the above disallowance. 3. The AO also erred in initiating Penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 4. The AO also erred in levying interest u/s 234B.” 3. In order to appreciate the controversy raised in Ground of…

DCIT, Cir-2, Asansol vs. Shri Atindra Nath Choubey, Asansol

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 601/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2018AY 2006-2007

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri K.K. Khemka, Advocate & P.C. Nayak, A/R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…as changed his opinion and there were no new material before him except an audit objection, therefore, reopening u/s 147/148 was bad in law. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561(SC) wherein it was held that AO must have tangible material to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income and that reasons must have a live link with the formation of belief. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that in assessee’s case under consideration Shri Atindra Nath Choubey CO No.27/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2006-07 it can be seen th…

Dy.C.I.T. 1, Bhilai(Cg) vs. M/S Ravi Shree Narayan Transport, Bhilai(Cg)

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 200/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68

…The decision is approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported as 8 ITA No.116/Rpr/2014: Assessment Year : 2010-2011 ITA No.199/Rpr/2014: Assessment Year : 2008-2009 ITA No.1200/Rpr/2014: Assessment Year : 2019-2010 CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd (320 ITR 561). in the case before us, the Assessing Officer has initiated reassessment proceedings on the same facts which were available before him at the time of making assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act and no new tangible material has come on the basis of which it could be said that he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped asses…