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.

The ACIT, Cicle -4(1), Indore vs. M/S. Narottamdas Enterprises Poddar Plaza, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 843/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 16

…147(b) of the Act, hence, reassessment based on opinion of audit party is invalid. Further, the reopening of assessment has not been found permissible within four corners of law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India, 320 ITR 561. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Fujistu Optel Limited, (2013) 359 ITR 67 (MP - HC), wherein it was held that on the basis of same set of facts, if the AO is of the view that it was a case of escaped assessment, then it was a case of change of opinion and not a case of reassessment. We also note that entry tax of Rs…

ACIT (E), New Delhi vs. Mai Kamliwali Jan Kalyan Charitable Trust, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4762/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2007-08 Dcit(E) Mai Kamliwali Jan Kalyan Circle-1(1), Vs. Charitable Trust, Room No. 2418, 24Th Floor, J-12 Rajouri Garden, E-2, Block, Pratyakash Kar Community Centre, Bhawan, New Delhi Dr. Shyama Prasad (Pan: Aaaam0224H) Mukherjee Civic Centre, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi – 110 002

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. PiyushFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. JAIN, SR. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 154

…rd enforces admission that there is no fresh tangible material and, no failure to disclose full and true all material facts necessary for assessment. He further stated that reasons are based on change of opinion, as held in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC) and CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del) and also stated that AO did not dispose of the objection by a speaking order in accordance with judgment of GKN Drive Shafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO 259 ITR 19. He further stated that no valid approval had been obtained in terms of section 151 of the Act. To support the aforesaid content…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Tvh Property Services India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2081/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Respondent: 03.11.2016

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…e material to form reason to believe that income has escaped the assessment though the same was raised before him. 6. The CIT(A) has failed to adjudicate on this. 7. The CIT (A) ought to have followed the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s.Kelvinator of India Ltd., 328 ITR 561 (SC). 8. The decisions relied on by the CIT (A), Praful Chunilal Patel vs M.J. 9. Makwana/Assistant Commissioner of Income tax 236 ITR 832 (GUJ) and Venus Industrial Corporation VS Assistant Commissioner of Income tax 236 ITR 742.(P&H) are not applicable to the facts of the case. 10. Ground No. 2.5 and 2.6 of the grounds of appeal filed by the ap…

ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6647/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 80

…iginal assessment order. The scope of reopening as prescribed u/s 147 is confined to bring to tax the income escaped. The law in this regard has been explained in detail by Hon'ble Supreme Court also, time and again. In the case of CIT vs Kelvinator India Ltd 320 ITR 561 (SC), it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that undoubtedly, after 1st April, 1989, power to reopen the assessment as prescribed u/s 147 is much wider. However, mere change of opinion cannot per se operate reasons to reopen an already concluded assessment. In other words, the AO has power to re-assess but no power to review. Thus, if the con…

ACIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Talapady Umashankar Shenava, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5161/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : (A.Y : 2006-07) ACIT, Circle - 6(1), Vs. Shri Talapady Umashankar Shenava Mumbai (Appellant) 602, Sibylle, 65, Worli Hill, Mumbai 400 018 (Respondent) PAN : AGLPS5429C Assessee by : Shri Mandar Vaidya Revenue by : Shri B.S. Bist Date of Hearing : 19/12/2016 Date of Pronouncement : 23/12/2016 O R D E R PER P.K. BANSAL, AM : This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A), Mumbai dated 15.4.2013. The Revenue even though has taken as many as 10…

ACIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Fiat India P.Ltd ( Now Known As New Holland (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 5901/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain D C I T – 10(1) M/S. Fiat India P. Ltd. Room No. 455, 4Th Floor (Now New Holland (India) P. Ltd.) 303, Central Plaza, 166 Cst Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400098 Pan – Aaaci3922Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. S. PadmajaFor Respondent: S/s. Paras Salva & Harsh Kapadia

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 45

…td. clear that the present reopening of assessment for A.Y. 2004-05 was on account of mere change of opinion, on the same set of facts available on record, which is not permissible in law as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd. (320 ITR 561) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Asian Paints Ltd. (308 ITR 195 (Bom). To sum up, the learned A.R. of the assessee contended that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any facts in relation to capital reduction. Mere change of opinion on same set of facts already disclosed before the AO was not a valid ground for reopening…

M/S. Standard Watch Co. (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3076/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 271(1)

…Suzuki India Ltd. vs. DCIT – 356 ITR 209 (Del.); iii) CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. – 348 ITR 485 (Del.) FB; iv) BLV Ltd. vs. ACIT – 343 ITR 129 (Del.); v ) CIT vs. Suren International (P) Ltd. – 357 ITR 24 (Del.); vi) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.- 320 ITR 561 (SC); 9. In ground No.3, the assessee has again questioned the validity of reassessment in absence of adjudication of objection raised by the assessee in terms of the decisions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.K.N. Drive shaft India Ltd.-259 ITR 19 (SC). 10. The Learned Senior DR on the other hand placed reliance on the o…

M/S Ilc Industries, Hospet vs. Pr. CIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 847/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Verma, CIT - DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 37(1)

…quashed. He also placed reliance on the decisions, viz Malabar Industrial Co Ltd vs CIT 243 ITR 0083 SC , CIT vs Anil Kumar Sharma 335ITR 083 Delhi, CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd 227 CTR 133 Delhi , CIT vs Vikas Polymers 194 Taxman 57 Delhi, Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 561 SC etc. 08. Per contra, the DR submitted that in the assessment made u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) for ay 2007-08, the assessee can not make any fresh claim as was done by it . In this regard, the DR relied on ITA.847 & 848/Bang/2015 Page - 7 the the Hon'ble ITAT , Pune “B” Bench decision in the case of Shri Shankar Junjhunwala v ACIT , Central Cir…

Commissioner of Income Tax (C)-I vs. Sahara India Saving & Investment Corp. Ltd

ITA/750/2016HC Delhi05 Dec 2016

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

Section 147Section 263Section 68

…ear, the issue was whether reassessment notice under Section 147/148 was validly issued. The ITAT concluded that on an application of the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) as a matter of fact there was no tangible material. We see no reason to disagree with those findings. For the other year, i.e., 1994-95, two issues are sought to be urged by the revenue. One concerns the provisioning of interest. The revenue had initially urged that the provision for interest was not made on a rational basis and was…

DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Balkrishna Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2380/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./2380/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./2381/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 वष" Dcit-6(1) M/S. Balkrishna Industries Limited 5Th Floor,R.No.506, Bkt House, Trade Wing, “C” Wing 15Th Floor, Kamala Mill Compound, Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Vs. Mumbai-20. Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013. Pan:Aaacb 3333 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Rai-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Ms. Ruchita Jain -Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01.12.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01.12.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसा राजे"" अनुसा अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- अनुसा Challenging The Orders Dated 31.12.2012 Of Cit(A)-14, Mumbai The Assessing Officer (Ao) Has Filed The Appeals For The Above Mentioned Two Ay.S. Assessee-Company, Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Tyres. The Details Of Returned Incomes, Assessed Incomes Can Be Summarised As Under :- A.Y. Returned Income(Rs.) Assessment Dt. Assessed Income(Rs.) 2006-07 90,34,55,520/- 31.12.2008 6,88,48,190/- 2007-08 111,41,60,846/- 26.12.2011 114,47,52,990/-

For Appellant: Ms. Ruchita Jain -ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Rai-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 32

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “बी मुंबई बी बी” ” ” ” खंडपीठ बी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“B”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./2380/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./2381/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 वष" DCIT-6(1) M/s. Balkrishna Industries Limited 5th Floor,R.No.506, BKT House, Trad…

Inventia Healthcare P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5049/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri R.S. Padvekarm/S. Inventia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., (Earlier Known As M/S. Themis Laboratories P. Ltd.) Unit No.4, Khira Indl. Estate, Acit –13(2), 477, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai -400 020 .....…. Appellant Vs Dcit -9(2), Mumbai .....… Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anil J. SatheFor Respondent: Shri Parasarth Naik

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)

…was the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material facts. Merely because the A.O. has different opinion that cannot be the ground for issuing notice u/s.147. The Ld. Counsel relied on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India -320 ITR 561 (SC) ii) Bhor Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT -267 ITR 161 (Bom) iii) Grindwell Norton Ltd. vs. ACIT-267 ITR 674 Per contra, the Ld. D.R. supports the action of the A.O. for issuing the notice u/s.148. 4. After hearing both the parties, in our opinion, the contention of the assessee has to be accepted. As per proviso to sec.147 of the Act, 4 M/s. Inve…

Commissioner of Income Tax (C)-I vs. Shri Suresh Nanda

ITA/761/2016HC Delhi28 Nov 2016

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

Section 148

…W.P. (C) Nos. 519/2016, 522/2016 & 761/2016 Page 1 of 12 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 18. + W.P.(C) 519/2016 AVTEC LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lal Chandani and Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates. versus DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing Counsel. WITH 19. + W.P.(C) 522/2016…

DCIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Intelnet Global Services P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7428/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-1(2)(1), M/S Intelnet Global Services R. No.535, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Mindspace, Malad West, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P C.O. No.99/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7428/Mum/2014) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Intelnet Global Services Dcit-1(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, R. No.535, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Mindspace, Malad West, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400064 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…(Bom) (para 21) CIT v. DLF Power Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 446 (Delhi) (para 14) CIT v. Eicher Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) (paras 10, 28) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] (paras 2, 12, 20, 48) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) (paras 2, 28) CIT v. Khemchand Ramdas [1938] 6 ITR 414 (PC) (para 50) CIT v. P. V. S. Beedies P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) (para 18) CIT (Asst.) v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) (paras 4, 12) CIT v. Sharma (H. P.) [1980] 122 ITR 675 (Delhi) (para 9) Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. v. Asst.CIT [2006] 281 I…

Asst CIT 4(3), Mumbai vs. Muimbai Stock Brokers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 6369/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit-4(3), M/S Mumbai Stock 6Th Floor, R. No.649, बनाम/ Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, R No.10A, 1St Floor, 7/10, Vs. M.K. Road, Botwala Building, Mumbai-4020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400023 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcm4133A

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 88E

Futura Polysters Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 313/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Futura Polyesters Ltd. D C I T – 5(1)(2) Paragon Condominium Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. 3Rd Floor, Pandurang Budhkar Mumbai 400020 Marg, Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aaaci3404K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Gosain , Judicial Member M/s. Futura Polyesters Ltd. D C I T – 5(1)(2) Paragon Condominium Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. 3rd Floor, Pandurang Budhkar Mumbai 400020 Marg, Mumbai 400013 PAN – AAACI3404K Appellant Respondent Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Ravinder Sindhu Date of Hearing: 26.10.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 04.11.2016 O R D E R Per Jason P. Boaz, A.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)- 9, Mumbai dated 01.10.2014 for A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-9 vs. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd

ITA/689/2016HC Delhi04 Nov 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Section 143Section 147Section 148

…, reappraising the existing material. The ITAT felt that the reopening was unwarranted and took note of the several decisions including previous judgment of this court. The ITAT relies on Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator of India Limited (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). 3. It is urged by the revenue that the impugned judgment is incorrect and has to be set aside. Learned counsel submitted that the judgment in Kelvinator of India Limited’s case (supra) is an authority on the question that the change of opinion is impermissible but does not decisively rule that the opinion on the basis of which the…

Galaxy Chemicals, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 22(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee may be treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 818/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 Galaxy Chemicals, Acit Range 22 (3) C-49 Ttc Indl Area Pawne, Vashi Railway St. Bldg. बनाम/ Navi Mumbai-400703 Navi Mumbai-40020 Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaafg0860G Appellant By Shri C.P. Ramaswami(Ar) Revenue By Shri Prakash Mane (Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 03/11/2016 03 /11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

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

…lication of mind. It is a classic example of misuse of provisions of reopening. Constitution of our country has attached great sanctity of the finality of litigation. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561(SC) that reopening cannot be done in absence of any tangible material and merely on the basis of change of opinion of the AO. Further, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Samcor Glass Ltd. vide its judgment dated 12th October 2015 in ITA No.768/2015 ( reported at 94 CCH 0075), came down heavily upon income tax department for reopening…

DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Sheth Financial Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5406/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5406/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) D.C.I.T. Cir. 7(1), M/S Sheth Financial बनाम/ Room No. 622, Services P. Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Known As P L M.K. Road, Research & Development Churchgate, Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai -400020. Sadhna House, 3 Rd Floor,, 570 P.B. Marg, Behind Mahindra Tower, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabcp4312L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 32

…e on the part of the assessee to truly and fully disclose all relevant material to frame assessment keeping in view the proviso to Section 147 of the Act. The ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561(SC) is directly applicable. We have observed that there is no failure on the part of the assessee in making a true and fully disclosure during the course of original assessment proceedings . The assessee has rightly relied on the following decisions:- 1. ICICI Bank v. DCIT, 268 ITR 203(Bom) 2. Ador Technopack Ltd. v. DCIT, 271 ITR 50 (Bom) 3. Su…

DCIT 10(2), Mumbai vs. Capagemini Consulting India P. Ltd ( Now Known As Capgemini India P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee also dismissed

ITA 2291/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri M M Golvala and Shri Hormuzd JamshedjiFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…rposes, the interest on FDR was part of the profit earned from the said UNIT. In 9 I T A N o . 1 3 3 8 / M / 2 0 1 2 , 2 2 9 1 / M / 2 0 1 2 a n d C O . 8 2 / M / 1 3 defence, the ld.AR heavily relied on a number of decisions namely Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561(SC), CIT V/s ICICI Bank Ltd reported in (349 ITR 482) (Bom), Cliantha Research Ltd V/s DCIT (SCA No.1547 of 2013)(Guj), Metal Alloys Corporation v.ACIT [2013] 350 ITR 245 (Gujarat) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT V/s Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd in Income Tax Appeal No.128 of 2016 order dated 1.4.2016. 9. On…

Capgemini Consulting Inida P.Ltd ( Now Known As Capgemini India P.Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee also dismissed

ITA 1338/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri M M Golvala and Shri Hormuzd JamshedjiFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148