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.

Sukhsagar Traders P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 8(3)2, Mumbai

ITA 7364/MUM/2010[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2017AY 1999-00

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7364/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 1999-2000 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Sukhsagar Traders Private Ltd. Ito-8(3)2 301A, Solaris-I, 72 Saki Vihar Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K Road Andheri East , Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 072. Pan:Aaacs 6165 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Dr. A.K. Nayak- Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Dr. Paras Jain सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/03/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 31.03.2017 लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt.3.8.2010 Of Cit(A), Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal. Assessee-Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 31. 01. 1999,Declaring Income Rs.13. 16 Lakhs.Initially Return Was Processed U/S.143(1) Of The Act. Later On Notice U/S.148 Of The Act Was Issued On 27.3.2006 After Recording The Reasons For Re-Opening.The Assessing Officer (Ao)Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3)R.W.S 147 Of The Act,Determining Its Income At Rs. 41.46 Lakhs.

For Appellant: Dr. Paras JainFor Respondent: Dr. A.K. Nayak- DR

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

…93/2005-06. Thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for subsequent assessment year in itself was a tangible material before the AO for reopening the assessment. Therefore, reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 is misplaced. 9. Considering all the facts on record, in the light of the provisions of Sec. 147 of the Act, we have no hesitation to hold that the reopening is valid as there is neither a change of opinion nor it is a case of absence of any tangible material. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere or tamper with the findings of the Ld…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. M/S Home Linkers E-Services Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is allowed

ITA/90/2017HC Delhi22 Mar 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 47

…under the FT Act. Page 1 of 3 I have reasons to believe that income to the tune of Rs.64,88,024/- has escaped assessment. Issue notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961." The ITAT followed the ruling of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 and the judgment of this Court in CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd. 354 ITR 536 and held as follows: “We have carefully considered the rival contentions as well as the order of the lower authorities on the basis of the reasons recorded which are reproduced above. Certainly it shows that reopening is made only on the basis of reappraisal of existing…

DCIT 9(2), Mumbai vs. Nesco Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5611/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…10) 324 ITR 240, 246 (Bom). Also reference may be had of D.T. & T.D.C. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2010) 324 ITR 234, 239 (Delhi). Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has disapproved such action of the Assessing Officer in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) Further, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has also not sustained such reopening of the completed assessment and therefore the decision in the case of Direct Information Pvt.Ltd vs. ITO (2012) 349 ITR 150 (Bom), is applicable to the case under appeal Recently, Hon'ble 8 M/S. NESCO LTD. Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nig…

DCIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Tata Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2961/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharincome Tax Appeal No.2961/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tata Finance Ltd Large Tax Payer Unit (Now Merged With Tata Motors Centre -1, 29Th Floor Ltd.) World Trade Centre Bombay House 24 Cuffe Parade Homi Mody Street Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan : Aaact1629F (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Income Tax Appeal No.2962/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Tata Motors Ltd. Large Tax Payer Unit Bombay House, 24 Centre -1, 29Th Floor Homi Mody Street World Trade Centre Mumbai – 400 001 Cuffe Parade Pan : Aaact2T27Q Mumbai – 400 005 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Smt S Padmaja & Smt Mahva Sarkar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Dinesh Vyas & Shri Manish Haria सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/12/2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-6, Mumbai Dated 27.01.2014 For The Assessment Years

For Appellant: Smt S Padmaja & Smt Mahva SarkarFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Shri Manish Haria

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

…eassessments on change of opinion in the absence of any new information or change in facts. He places reliance on the following decisions for this proposition. i) CIT V Kelvinator of India Ltd. (256 ITR 1)(Del)(FB) affirmed in CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561)(SC) ii) CIT v Usha International (348 ITR 485)(Del)(FB) iii) Idea Cellular Ltd. v DCIT (301 ITR 407) (Bom.) iv) Cartini India Limited v ACIT (314 ITR 275) (Bom.) v) CIT v Prima Paper & Engg. Ltd. (364 ITR 222) (Bom.) vi) Siemens Information Systems Ltd. v. ACIT (295 ITR 333) (Bom.) vii) CIT v ICICI Bank Ltd. (349 ITR 482) (Bom.) viii) NYK Line (…

Disha N . Lalwani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6398/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2003-04 Disha N. Lalwani, Income Tax Officer- J-301, Vardhaman Nagar 23(2)(2), बनाम/ Jn. Of R.P. Rd. & M.G. Rd. C-10-Pratyakshkar Vs. Mulund (W), Bhavan, 02Nd Floor, Mumbai-400080 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaapl6056H

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

…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)]. 31 Disha N. Lalwani 2.29. So far as, the decision in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while coming to a particular conclusion, only in a situation, when not a single piece of paper or document was recovered, therefore, the Hon’ble Court held that since there was no tangible material found and the addition was merely on the basis of statement only then reopening of assessment u/s 147 of th…

Just Textiles Ltd, Ambernath vs. DCIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1907/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S.Just Textiles Ltd., K-5, Vs. Dcit Rg 10 (3), Mumbai - Additional Midc Anand 400020 Nagar (E), Ambernath – 421506 Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1221D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 48Section 50

…the income should be taxable in the A Y 2008-09 and not A Y 2007-08. This is nothing but change of opinion and reopening is not permissible on change of opinion. Reliance was placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC), wherein Hon'ble Apex 4 M/s. Just Textiles Ltd., Court held that “though the power to reopen under the amended s. 147 is much wider, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe" failing which s.147 would give arbitrary powers to the AO to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which ca…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. C&S Electric Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1318/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2004-05 Vs. C&S Electric Ltd., 222, Okhla Dcit(Ltu), Nbcc Plaza, Pushp Vihar, Sector-3, New Delhi Industrial Estate, New Delhi Pan : Aaacc0909K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Anil Bhalla, Ca Date Of Hearing 01.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ltu, New Delhi, Dated 03.12.2013, Raising The Following Grounds:

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

…terial for reopening the assessment, framing the reassessment on the basis of the same material amounted to review or change of opinion and which is not permitted in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India, 320 ITR 561(SC). 12. In the case of Control and Switchgear Contractors Ltd Vs. DCIT (supra), relied upon by the Ld. DR, the original assessment was completed under section 143(1) of the Act and therefore the first provisio to section 147 of the Act was not applicable in that case and, therefore, ratio of the said case, as far as reopening of the assessment i…

ACIT, Cir-43, Kolkata vs. Shri Ajay Kumar Thakkar, Kolkata

In the result, CO of the assessee is allowed on legal ground of the assessee then remaining grounds of the assessee’s CO on merits becomes academic and infructuous

ITA 433/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravic.O. No.48/Kol/2014 (A/O Ita No.433/Kol/2014) Assessment Year:2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 147

…more amount of income, it is clearly a change of opinion. It is a fresh application of mind on the same set of facts. This, in our considered opinion, is not permissible as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC). The relevant extract of the judgment is extracted below:- “Therefore, post - 1st April 1989, power to reopen is much wider. However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe" failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis…

Lmj Logistics Ltd, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 2, Kolkata

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

ITA 844/KOL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2003-04 Lmj Logistics Ltd., V/S. Dcit, Circle-2, 30, J.L. Nehru Road, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 7Th Kolkata-16 [Pan No.Aabcp 8494 K] Floor, Kolkata-700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

…tion of mind on the same set of facts. This, in our considered opinion, is not permissible as held ITA No.844/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 LMJ Logistics Ltd. Vs. DCIT Cr-2, Kol. Page 6 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC). The relevant extract of the judgment is extracted below:- 'Therefore, post - 1st April 1989, power to reopen is much wider. However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe" failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1 vs. M/S International Amusement Ltd

ITA/168/2017HC Delhi14 Mar 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

…on of assessment under Section 143(3). At that time, the AO had not fully enquired into the loan entries claimed by the assessee and in the circumstances, this Court should intervene with the impugned order. The judgment in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 instructs the Courts that mere change of opinion is not substantial to warrant reassessment notice under Sections 147/148. In the present case, arguendo, the reassessments were upheld, nevertheless the ITAT, in this Court’s opinion was justified in deleting the addition. This is because the materials which the assessee had relied upon in the…

M/S. Richa Industries Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

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

ITA 1476/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singh & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 36Section 80I

…[2012] 348 ITR 452 (Del) JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WRT TO PARA 3E ABOVE Judgement Judgement Name No. 5 Atomstroyexport v. Deputy DIT (I.T.) [2014] 363 ITR 612 (Bom). 6 Sayaji Hotels Ltd. v. ITO [2011] 339 ITR 498 (Guj). 8 CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). 9 CIT v. ICICI Bank Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 482 (Bom). 10 Direct information (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2012] 349 ITR 150 (Bom) 11 NYK Line (India) Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (No. 2) [2012J 346 ITR 361 (Bom). 12 Rabo India Finance Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2012] 346 ITR 528 (Bom). I.T.A .No.-1476/Del/2014 Richa Industries Ltd. vs ACIT Page 7 of 8 13 NDT Systems v.…

Cairn Uk Holding Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1669/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Puri CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144

…to the above submission given in point no. 24 to 73, the Appellant would like to submit that reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO are contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). As mentioned above, in the case under consideration the information was received by the AO of the Appellant from the AO of CIL. However, the AO of the CIL was always aware about the transfer of shares of CIHL from the Appellant to CIL. The same is also observed by the AO in the Transfer Pricing order of CIL for AY 2007-08 (refer page no. 57…

Shapoorji Pallanji and Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3053/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-3(3), बनाम/ Shapporji Pallonji Centre, Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Vs. 41/44 Minoo Desai Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Colaba Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacs6994C

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ing is based upon the finding arrived at by the ITO of Shri Nilesh Thakur and it can be said it was a merely borrowed satisfaction. In a landmark decision the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kelvinator 31 M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Pvt. Ltd. of India Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 has evolved a broad principle as under what circumstances reassessment can be framed. Likewise in Green World Corporation vs ITO (2009) 314 ITR 81 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer at the dictate of the CIT is 'nullity'. Likewise the Hon'ble High Court of Rajashthan in Syntex Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 221…

ACIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Motors Ltd ( Earlier Known As Tata Engg & Locomotive Co.Ltd), Mumbai

In the result the ground of appeal raised in Cross objections is dismissed being infructuous

ITA 3600/MUM/2011[20001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2017

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)Section 37(1)

…munication Ltd. vs. ACIT [ITA No. 3417/M/09 and C.O. No. 201/M/2012 Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar (268 ITR 332 and Hindustan Unilever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 339 (Bom)]. And the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Calvinator of India Ltd. 322 ITR 561 (SC). The ld AR for assessee also filed the list on the following decision for his relience. i. Hindustan Lever Limited v r. B. Wadkar (268 ITR 332) (Bom). ii. Hindustan Lever Limited v r. B. Wadkar (268 ITR 339) (Bom). iii. Kimpas Trenton Fittings v. ACIT (340 ITR 299) (Bom). iv. Idea Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT (301 ITR 407)(Bom). v. IPCA Laboratorie…

D.C.I.T, Cir-2, Kolkata vs. M/S Gloster Jute Mills Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1524/KOL/2013[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.1524/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Singhania, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Anand Kumar Sinha, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] I.T.A No.1524/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2003-04 D.C.I.T-Circle-1, -vs.- M/s. Gloster Jute Mills Ltd. Circle-1(2), Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AAACG 9800B] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.99/Kol/2013 (A/o I.T.A No.1524/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2003-04 M/s. Gloster Jute Mills Ltd. -vs- D.C.I.T., Circle-1, Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AAACG 9800B] (Cross Objector) (Respondent) For the Department : Shri Anand Kumar Sinha, JCIT For the Assessee : Shri Mayank Singhania, ACA Date of Hearing : 13.…

M/S Sheetu Educational Service Pvt Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT 5(1), Indore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

ITA 354/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11