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 367,154 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.

ITO, Chennai vs. Arunachalam Nachammai, Chennai

ITA 198/CHNY/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

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

…n the case of JCIT v Kalanithi Maran (366 ITR 453) appreciated the wide powers available to the Assessing Officer in the matter of reopening, thus, sufficiently distinguishing the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Kelvinator India Ltd (320 ITR 561). 3.1 The CIT(A) erred in deleting the capital gains charged on the land, on the ground that the impugned land is agricultural in nature. 3.2 The CIT(A) ought to have noted that after the reopening was quashed by the CIT(A), there was no order subsisting for the CIT(A) to adjudicate the merits of the addition made in the assessment order. 3.3 T…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 46, Mumbai vs. Sun Investments P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4077/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri ManjunathaswamyFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154

…g any material to come to a different conclusion. It is a settled proposition of law that reason to believe can never be the outcome of a change of opinion. This view is supported by Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. [320 ITR 561] and CIT vs. Foramer France [264 ITR 567] are applicable to the facts of the case of assessee. Since, Assessing Officer has changed his own earlier decision, so, CIT(A) was justified in holding that Assessing Officer has wrongly assumed the jurisdiction u/s.157 of the Act. Same is upheld. 3. Next issue is with regard to business loss of Rs.7,30,…

Concorde Motors (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD) 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 234/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: S/Sh.Joginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./234/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2003-04 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Concorde Motors (India) Ltd. The Acit, Circle-(Osd)-2(1) 3Rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya, 16, Homi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 001. Pan:Aaacm 0154 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ganesh Bare-Dr Assessee By: Shri Farrokh V.Irani-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23.05.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम 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 अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt. 04.10.2012 Of Cit(A)-4,Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Servicing & Maintenance Of Vehicles, Filed Its Return Of Income 05.01.2006, Declaring Total Income At Nil .The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Was Passed On 3.12.2008,Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.58,53, 770/-.

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V.Irani-ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 79

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “सी मुंबई सी सी ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ सी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “ C ”Bench Mumbai सव"ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/Sh.Joginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./234/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2003-04 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Concorde Motors (India) Ltd. The ACIT, circle-(OSD)-2(1) 3rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya, 16, Homi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mody Street, Hutatma C…

ITO, Ward-56(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Nopany & Sons, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1258/KOL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…of assessment by the Assessing Officer was clearly based on a mere change of opinion. Reliance was placed by him on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Kelvinator of India Limited reported in 320 ITR 561, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the I.T.A. No. 1258/KOL./2012 Assessment year: 2004-2005 & C.O. NO. 91/KOL/2012 (in ITA No. 1258/KOL/2012) Assessment year: 2004-2005 Page 4 of 9 case of Debashis Moulik –vs.- ACIT reported in 370 ITR 660 and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT –vs.- Tupperware India (P) Limited reported in 23…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Jnj Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 707/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja (Acountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e of original assessment proceedings. Thus, there is no failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing all material facts needed for the assessment. We derive support from the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd 320 ITR 561 (SC) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Industries Ltd 382 ITR 574 (Bom). 6 4.4 We have also examined other crucial aspect, as to whether there was any escapement of income in this case. A perusal of the reasons reveals that as per the Assessing Officer the commission income was not offered in the re…

Shri Santosh Jagati, Nainital vs. ITO, Nainital

The appeal is allowed

ITA 4752/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2008-09 Santosh Jagati, Vs. Ito, Anupam Hotel, Nainital, Mallital, Nainital. (Pan: Aavpj4767C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kapil Goyal, Adv. Department By : Smt. Anima Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 15 :06.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On The Following Grounds: 1. Because The Learned Cit(Appeals)-Ii, Dehradun, Was Not Justified In Confirming The Assessing Officers Action U/S. 148. He Failed To Appreciate The Fact That All Necessary Details Regarding Letting Out Of Property On Rent & Of The Property Sold-(Land With The Building Constructed Thereon) Were Already On Record While Processing The Return U/S. 143(1) Or Rectifying The Same U/S. 154. 2. Because The Learned Cit(Appeals)-Ii, Dehradun, Misunderstood The Whole Facts & Confused Himself Between The Property Inherited From An Ancestor Before 1.04.1981 & The Property Acquired By The Appellant Himself. He Failed To Appreciate The Fact

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 154

…aw? The Hon'ble High Court after discussing several decisions including the decision in the cases of CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. (supra), ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) – 291 ITR 500 (S.C), and CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. (2010) – 320 ITR 561 and CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. (supra) has come to the conclusion that questions framed for consideration by the Full Bench in Usha International Ltd. as set out in para No. 1 of the said judgment did not pertain to reopening of an assessment under sec. 143(1) of the Act. The central issue examined in the said decision of the Full Bench was…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, cross objections of the

ITA 4847/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…hout any tangible material, and without application of mind, the AO held that there is escapement of income. For this proposition, the ld. AR placed reliance on the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd 320 ITR 561 [SC]. The ld. AR reiterating its submission again pointed out that as per first proviso to section 147 of the Act, reopening of assessment is not permissible after expiry of four years from the end of relevant A.Y unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by the reason of failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts n…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Landbase India Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, cross objections of the

ITA 3549/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

M/S. S G Estates Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5642/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…otice u/s 147 is invalid on mere change of opinion formed on the same set of facts which were on record during the original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act as has been held by Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 and Full Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. reported in 348 ITR 485. 2 That the learned Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in upholding an addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- by enhancing the closing stock (WIP) on misconception of facts and, statutory provision o…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Socomec Hpl (P) Ltd., Gurgaon

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4925/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Senior DR

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

…sessee in the profit & loss account which were allowed by the ld. CIT (A) by applying his mind; that the AO has no additional material to reopen the assessment which is a condition precedent as per judgment cited as CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. – (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). 6. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative for the revenue to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 4 ITA No.4925/Del./2012 7. For facility of reference, the reasons recorded by the AO for issuance of notice u…

S. K. Dudhoria Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-1(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1536/KOL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 73

…d thus the reopening of assessment by the Assessing Officer was clearly based on mere change of opinion, which is not permissible in law as rightly held, inter alia, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Kelvinator of India Limited reported in 320 ITR 561. 5. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, strongly supported the impugned order of ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue. He contended that the issue relating to the assessee’s claim for adjustment of speculative loss against business income, which has not been examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings under section 143(3)…

M/S.. Upkar International (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6710/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2003-04 Upkar International (P) Ltd., Dcit, Circle 18(1), C/O J.S. Kochar & Associates, Vs. Cr Building, 209, Sewak Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi 16/2, Wea Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110 005

For Appellant: Sh. J.S. Kochar & Sh. Udai BirFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 801BSection 80I

…hands of the AO when reasons were recorded and it is a case of change of opinion, which is not permissible in view of the law settled by the following decisions and therefore, the reassessment needs to be quashed. (a) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) (b) CIT vs Central Warehousing Corporation (2015) 371 ITR 81 Del) (c) Vodafone South Ltd. vs Union of India (2014) 363 ITR 388 (Del) (d) Madhukar Khosla vs ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 165 (Del) 4 A.Y. 2003-04 (e) BLB Ltd. vs ACIT (2012) 343 ITR 129 (Del) 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that lowe…

Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4504/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2005-06 Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Acit, Delux Apartment, Circle-16(2), बनाम/ Altamount Road, Matru Mandir Bldg. Vs. Mumbai-400026 Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Afupg3313H ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 53ESection 54ESection 56

…(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) 21 Jayant Manilal Gandhy 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 Finves…

Genheral Machinery Technical Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1176/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 1176/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03 M/S. General Machinery & The Acit, Circle-1(1), बनाम/ Technical Services Ltd., Mumbai Vs. 1-B, Parekh Mahal, 1St Floor, Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg 2083Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Sharad Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ng of assessment on mere change of opinion is not permissible in law. He places reliance on the following decisions: 1. Rallis India Ltd Vs ACIT (323 ITR 54) (Bombay H. C) 2. Godrej Agrovat Ltd. Vs DCIT 323 ITR 97 (Bombay H. C) 3. CIT Vs Kelvinator of India (320 ITR 561) (SC) 3 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative submits that this ground has not raised before the Ld. CIT(A) and for the first time this ground is raised before the Tribunal. He submits that the matter has not been examined by the Ld. CIT(A). He further submits that there is no change of opinion. 5. Heard both sides, perused the orders of the a…

Mr. Keshab Chandra Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3767/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2001-02 Sh. Keshab Chandra Jain Vs. Acit, Circle Noida C/O S.Ramanand Aiyar & Co. C.As Noida 708, Surya Kiran Bldg. 19, Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi 110 001 Pan: Abupj 6333 Q

For Appellant: Ms. Lalitha Krishnamurthy, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. T.James Singson, Sr.D.R

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

…capital gain. 4.1. The reason for reopening the assessment is on the issue of capital gain which arose on the sale of DSIDC plot. Thus in our view the reopening is made based on change of opinion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India (320 ITR 561) reaffirmed the judgement of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 01. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court had held that the reopening cannot be made on a mere change of opinion. It was held as follows. “When a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of Sub Section (3) of S.143 of the Ac…

DCIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Universal Ferro & Allied Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1827/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri V. MohanFor Respondent: Shri A. Kumbhar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : (A.Y : 2005-06) DCIT-1(3), Vs. M/s. Universal Ferro & Allied Mumbai. Chemicals Ltd., Liberty Bldg., Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg, Mumbai 400 020. PAN : AAACU1697C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri V. Mohan Department by : Shri A. Kumbhar Date of Hearing : 12.05.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2016 O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order 25.10.2012 for A.Y 2005-06 in Appeal N…

ITO 3(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Everlon Synthetics P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 6965/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6965/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Income Tax Officer 3(1)(4), M/S Everlon Synthetics बनाम/ R. No. 666, Pvt. Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhawan,M.K. Road, 67, Regent Chambers, Mumbai – 400 020. 208 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaace0860H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…dent reasoning re-opened the concluded assessment , the issue of notice u/s 148 should be treated as nullity and also the consequential proceedings against the assessee company be dropped . The assessee company relied upon the following decisions:- 1. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), Kelvinator India Ltd. 2. (2012)254 CTR 221(SC), Simplex Concrete Piles India Ltd. 3. (2012) 252 CTR 78 (Bom. HC), Monitor India (P) Ltd. 4. (2012) 68 DTR 85 (Bom), NYK Line (India) Ltd. 5. (2011)349 ITR 150 (Bom), Direct Information P. Ltd. 6. (2010) 332 ITR 587 (Bom), IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd. 7. (2010) 331 ITR 236 (Bom), J…

ITO 25(2)3, Mumbai vs. Siddhivinayak Construction, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed accordingly

ITA 1887/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1887/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Income Tax Officer 25(2)(3) M/S. Siddhivinayak बनाम/ C-11, R.No.105, Construction Vs. Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Sukarwadi, M.G.Road, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Borivali(E), Bandra(East), Mumbai - 400066 Mumbai - 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanfs5318J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,“E” "यायपीठ, मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी बी. आर. बा"करन, लेखा सद"य यवं "ी अमरजीत "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1887/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Income Tax Officer 25(2)(3) M/s. Siddhivinayak बनाम/ C-11, R.No.105, Construction Vs. Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Sukarwadi, M.G.Road, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Borivali(E), Bandra(East), Mumbai - 400066 Mumbai - 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AANFS5318J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Re…

ACIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Cannon Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5517/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2016AY 2002-03

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 254(1)Section 80H

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई “सी सी ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई सी सी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “ C ”Bench Mumbai सव"ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/ShJoginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5517/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2002-03 वष" ACIT, Circle-1(1), Room No.579 M/s. Cannon Industries Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. 109, Churchgate Chambers Vs. 5 New Marine Lines,Mumbai…

Kashinath Tapuriah, Kolkatta vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8339/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia &For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &

Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…nt/s to the returned income, can even otherwise be made only on the basis of material on record, applying the extant law (of-course duly confronting the assessee therewith) and, besides, is impermissible to be reviewed (CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC)). Be that as it may, in all cases of completed assessment, as held by the Hon’ble Court in Continental Warehousing Corporation (supra), binding on us, the scope of section 153A assessment shall be confined to the findings of the search or, as the case may be, requisition. 19. Ground # 5 is in respect of an addition for Rs.2,43,80,000/- (the…