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.

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 561)

M/S. Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed on all the grounds

ITA 874/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishiescorts Heart Institute & Research Vs. Acit, Centre Ltd, Central Circle-3, Okhla Road, Okhla, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaace8731F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. M. Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhash Verma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 234D

…s or investigation of facts cannot constitute a mistake apparent from the record. 4. Debatable issues where two views are possible are outside the purview of proceedingts u/s 154. C. Judgement relied upon 1. 256 ITR 1 (FB) (Delhi) paras 23 and 15) affirmed in 320 ITR 561 (HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ) 2. CIT Vs. Vac Met Corporation (P) Ltd (1981) 127 ITR 676 (Guj) 3. Cit Vs. Tirupattur Co-op Sugar Mills Ltd 246 ITR 227 (Mad) 4. Cit Vs. Shiv Narain karmendra narain 280 ITR 355 (all) 5. Cit Vs. MMTC ltd 246 ITR 725 (delhi) 6. ACIt Vs. Indian Farmer Fertilizer Co-op Ltd 51 SOT 112 (URO) (DELHI) 7. DCIT Vs. M/s. Insilco Lt…

Sh. Devender Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3104/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri Prashant Maharishidevender Kumar Aggarwal, Cit 1533, Ranu Bagh, New Delhi Delhi-Ix, New Delhi Vs. Pan:Aaapa1974F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Satish Khosla, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Mitali Madhusmita, CIT DR

Section 143Section 263Section 54Section 54E

…f the relevant assessment year is very wide. Nevertheless this power to reopen an assessment within a period of 4 years does not permit review of an assessment Order. This is settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561/ 187 Taxman 312 wherein it has been held as under: "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 assessment on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must al…

ITO (3) 2(2), Mumbai vs. R.K. Educational Foundation, Mumbai

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

ITA 1318/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

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…

Surja Sekhar Ganguly, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward - 17(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 275/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. &Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri: Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, ld.DR

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…or quashed when there was no completed originally u/s 143( I )." The Third Member agreed with the view taken by the learned Judicial Member relying mainly on the decision of Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd. (supra) and Eicher Ltd. 320 ITR 561. It was held by the Third Member that section 147 applies both to section 143(1) as well as section 143(3) and, therefore, except to the extent that a reassessment notice issued u/s 148 in a case where the-original assessment was' made u/s 143(1) cannot be challenged on the ground of a mere change of opinion, still it is open to an assessee to ch…

Lakshmi Narayan Agarwal, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer -Ward37(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.01/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Lakshmi Narayan Agarwal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, “Sparsh”4Th Floor, 35/8, Ward-37(3), Kolkata- Poddopukur Road, Kolkata- 700001 700020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acvpa 3271 C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Tibrewal, Fca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Subhro Das, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2004-2005, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxiv, In Appeal No.1219/Cit(A)- Xxiv/Set-Aside/37(3)/12-13, Dated 19.12.2012, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 29.12.2010. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee’S Income Tax Return For Assessment Year 2004-05 Was Assessed By Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Ao Detected That The Assessee Invested In A Property & Not Shown The Amount Of Capital Gain Of Rs.13,45,760/-. Therefore, The Ao Presumed That There Was An Excess Claim Of Rs.13,45,760/- U/S.54F Of It Act. Hence, Believing The Reason That Income Chargeable To Tax Escaped Assessment For The Year, The Ao Has Issued Notice U/S.148/147 Of The It Act. The Ao Observed That The Assessee Has Invested In A Property & Thus Claimed The Excess Amount

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Subhro Das, JCIT

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.01/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Lakshmi Narayan Agarwal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, “Sparsh”4th Floor, 35/8, Ward-37(3), Kolkata- Poddopukur Road, Kolkata- 700001 700020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ACVPA 3271 C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCA राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Subhro Das, JCIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 07/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement 19/10/201…

ITO 3(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Snow Valley Construction Mateiral P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4377/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Tiwari and Ms. Rituja PawarFor Respondent: Shri Sathya Moorthy-DR

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…he assessee, that the AO had not brought any new information to suggest that assessee’s income had escaped assessment, that there was no justification for reopening the assessment. He referred to the case of TRF Ltd. (230 CTR 14) and Kelvinator of India Ltd. (322 ITR 561) and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5.During the course of hearing before us, the Departmental Representative(DR) supported the order of the AO and referred to the case of Rajesh Jhaveri. The Authorised Representative(AR) argued that reasons recorded by the AO are not valid, that bad debts had to be allowed. He referred to the cases o…