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 147Section 143(3)Section 148Section 142(1)Section 151Section 143(2)Section 68Section 139
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

kelvinatorfresh tangible materialmere change of opinionfirst proviso to section 147material facts necessary for assessmentfull and true disclosurechange of opinionbeyond four yearslive linktangible materialescapement of incomereason to believe

Judgments citing CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

Tata Motors Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 3511/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon'Ble

Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 32A

…following decisions: • Coca-Cola Export Corporation [(1990) 231 ITR 200 (SC)] wherein it held that "there should be some fresh information and not mere reappraisal of evidence on record to justify jurisdiction for re-assessment • Kelvinator India Limited [(320 ITR 561) (SC)] (enclosed at page nos.394 to 396 of the legal paperbook) • TechSpan India Pvt Ltd [Civil Appeal No. 2732/2007 dated 24 April 2018 (SC)) • New Delhi Television Ltd. [(2020) 424 ITR 607 dated 3 April 2020 (SC)] (enclosed at page nos.549 to 564 of the legal paperbook): "33. In our view the assessee disclosed all the primary facts necessary…

Daya Shanker Tiwari, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), I T Tower, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 827/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K A Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kannan, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…n our considered view, is a ‘change of opinion’ on the basis of very same material, which is not permissible under law. 8. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs., Kelvinator India Limited [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC), wherein it has been clearly held that, “mere change of opinion, cannot be a ground for reopening of concluded assessment”. The Hon’ble Apex Court very categorically held that, “the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess must be keep in mind while reopening the assessment. The Assessing Officer has no power to r…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Bareilly vs. Varunarjun Trust, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 620/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

…be investigated and decided by the assessing authority. The assessee would be entitled to take all the points before the assessing authority. The appeals were dismissed." 6.4 In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd., AY- 1987-88 [320 ITR 561], the Hon’ble Apex Court affirmed the order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. In this case it has been held that- (i)Whether even after amendment of section 147 with effect from 1-4-1989, a mere change in opinion would not confer jurisdiction upon Assessing Officer to initiate a proceeding under section 147 - Held yes (ii)Whether by reason of sec…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bareilly vs. Varunarjun Trust, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 619/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

…be investigated and decided by the assessing authority. The assessee would be entitled to take all the points before the assessing authority. The appeals were dismissed." 6.4 In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd., AY- 1987-88 [320 ITR 561], the Hon’ble Apex Court affirmed the order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. In this case it has been held that- (i)Whether even after amendment of section 147 with effect from 1-4-1989, a mere change in opinion would not confer jurisdiction upon Assessing Officer to initiate a proceeding under section 147 - Held yes (ii)Whether by reason of sec…

Rajendra Kumar Mundra (HUF), Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1000/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 263Section 68Section 69A

…. 3497 of 2019 was dismissed. Therein, reference was also made to the decision in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd, 41 ITR 191and Gemini Leather Stores vs ITO, [1975] 100 ITR, and CIT vs Kelvinator of 15 Rajendra Kumar Mundra (HUF)., Mumbai. India Ltd. 320 ITR 561(SC). 37. In view of the above discussion, we find that NFAC vide impugned order dated 14- 08-2024 was fully justified in allowing Ground No.7 raised by the assessee in the appeal challenging assessment order dated 17-05- 2023 while concluding that reopening in subsequent reassessment u/s 147 read with Section 144B of the Act was not valid. Conc…

Mahesh Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-68(6), Delhi

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

ITA 2650/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, DELHI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT (THIRD MEMBER), SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, vs ITO, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. PAN-AOOPK6335A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Neeraj Mangla, CA Respondent by Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 06.08.2025 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, V.P. : This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appea…

ACIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Capital Limited (Successor to Tata Cleantech Capital Limited), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3456/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80Section 80I

…a settled position of law that reassessment proceeding cannot be initiated merely on account of change of opinion by the tax authorities as held by Hon'ble’ Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Limited 9 Tata Capital Ltd. AY 2016-17 (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) wherein it was held that section 147 of the Act does not confer arbitrary power to the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment merely on account of change of opinion. 7.1. We note that material for allowability of deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) was furnished before the ld. Assessing Officer and was accepted without any shortcoming in the regu…

Sunil Uttam Kakade, Pune vs. ITO Ward 4(3) Pune, Pune

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2251/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2251/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sunil Uttam Kakade, V The Income Tax Officer, Roopm No.7, Bldg. No.4, S. Ward-8(3), Pune. Ashok Nagar Pimpri, Kalewadi B.O, Pune – 411017. Maharashtra. Pan: Aospk4472L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 31.10.2023 For A.Y.2017-18, Emanating From The Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 29.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(2)Section 144(1)(b)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

…ange of opinion and hence, not sustainable. The ld.AR relied on the following case laws : “a. Berger Paints India Ltd. V. ACIT ([2010] 322 ITR 369 (Calcutta)) b. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi V. Kelvinator of India Ltd. ([2010] 187 Taxman 312 (SC)/[2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC)/[2010] 228 CTR 488 (SC)) c. CEAT Ltd. V.Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax ([2023] 146 taxmann.com 107 (Bombay)/ [2023] 291 Taxman 366 (Bombay)) d. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax V.Financial Software and Systems (P.) Ltd. ([2022] 145 taxmann.com 37 (SC)/ [2022] 447 ITR 370 (SC)) ITA No.2251/PUN/2025 for A.Y.2017-18 [A] e.…

Sterling Infrastructure Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-15, Delhi

ITA 3982/DEL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Years: 2014-15 Sterling Infrastructure Private Vs Acit, Limited, Central Circle-15, 20A, Rajpur Road, Delhi. Civil Lines, Delhi – 110 054. Pan: Aakcs7108Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ranjan Chopra, Advocate & Shri Jaspal Singh Sethi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Chopra, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 196

…edings cannot be initiated unless the income has escaped assessment by reason of the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Reliance was placed on the decision in CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) 4. Though ld. DR vehemently defended the impugned reopening and consequent orders and has relied the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in 3 the case of Puri Constructions (P) Ltd. Versus ACIT [2024]159 taxmann.com 444 (Delhi) to contend that it is now settled that EDC payments would be covered under section 194C of the Act, what we find t…

M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8(1), Ltu-II, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 601/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)

…he material facts at the time of original assessment needs to be satisfied. In this context, it is gainful to refer to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision endorsing the Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [320 ITR 561] wherein inter-alia, it was held that Assessing Officer has no power to M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. :: 9 :: review; and emphasized that AO in absence of “tangible material” should not resort to reopening. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that merely on “change of opinion” the AO should not re-open the assessment because he doesn’t enjoy the power t…

Sylvan Greens Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Bhala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 801C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyla-@ITA No.414/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2015-16 Sylvan Greens Private Ltd. cuke The DCIT Vs. 4-A, Kamla Nehru Market Circle-6 East Ajmeri Gate, Jaipur – 302 004 Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCS5914 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Smt. Neelam Bhala, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls…

Vinita Bajoria, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/JPR/2025[201617]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 370/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vinita Bajoria 1, Ganesh Colony Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEBPB4873M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 370/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 cuke Vinita Bajoria Income Tax Officer, Vs. 1, Ganesh Colony Moti Doongri Ward 5(2), Road, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AEBPB4873M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tmf Holdings Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 2983/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhrideputy Commissioner Of Vs Tmf Holdings Limited 14, 4Th Floor, Sir H C Dinshaw Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai Building, 16, Horniman Circle, Fort, Room No.535, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai-400 001 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Pan: Aacct4644A 400 020 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

…essing officer in case of the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer cannot take a different view in the course of the proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Reference in this regard is placed on the following decisions: • Kelvinator of India Ltd. [320 ITR 561 (SC)] [refer page nos. 411 to 413 of legal paperbook] • Castrol India Ltd. [(2024) 299 Taxman 71 dated 05 March 2024 (Bombay HC)] [refer page nos. 447 to 453 of legal paperbook] 3 The learned Departmental Representative has relied on the proviso and explanation 1 to section 147 of the Act as well as the decision in case of Phoolchand Bajrang La…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Alodie Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1730/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Alodie Estates Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Income Tax, Central B-4/43, Floor, Safdarjung Circle-2, New Delhi Enclave, New Delhi-110029 Pan No.Aaica1782G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 68

…Ita No. 1730/Del/2016 ACIT v. M/s Alodie Estates Pvt. Ltd. A.Y.2011-12 1 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH “E” NEWDELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asstt. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Alodie Estates Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Income Tax, Central B-4/43, Floor, Safdarjung Circle-2, New Delhi Enclave, New Delhi-110029 PAN No.AAICA1782G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocate Sh. Deepesh Garg, Advocate Date of hearing 03.07.2025 Date of 18…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna vs. Ashish Omprakash Mantri, Jalna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 148/PUN/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…e Revenue challenged the above decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue as reported in (2024) 466 ITR 50 (SC). 25. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), he submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that after 01.04.1989, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen the assessment, provided there is 'tangible material' to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment; reasons must have a live link with formation of belief. 26. He also relied…

Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Jalna vs. Pramila Omprakash Mantri, Jalna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 146/PUN/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…e Revenue challenged the above decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue as reported in (2024) 466 ITR 50 (SC). 25. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), he submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that after 01.04.1989, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen the assessment, provided there is 'tangible material' to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment; reasons must have a live link with formation of belief. 26. He also relied…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna vs. Pramila Omprakash Mantri, Jalna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 145/PUN/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…e Revenue challenged the above decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue as reported in (2024) 466 ITR 50 (SC). 25. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), he submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that after 01.04.1989, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen the assessment, provided there is 'tangible material' to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment; reasons must have a live link with formation of belief. 26. He also relied…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna vs. Atul Omprakash Mantri, Jalna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 143/PUN/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…e Revenue challenged the above decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue as reported in (2024) 466 ITR 50 (SC). 25. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), he submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that after 01.04.1989, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen the assessment, provided there is 'tangible material' to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment; reasons must have a live link with formation of belief. 26. He also relied…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna vs. Atul Omprakash Mantri, Jalna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 142/PUN/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…e Revenue challenged the above decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue as reported in (2024) 466 ITR 50 (SC). 25. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), he submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that after 01.04.1989, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen the assessment, provided there is 'tangible material' to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment; reasons must have a live link with formation of belief. 26. He also relied…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna vs. Omprakash Asaram Mantri, Jalna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 141/PUN/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…e Revenue challenged the above decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue as reported in (2024) 466 ITR 50 (SC). 25. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), he submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that after 01.04.1989, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen the assessment, provided there is 'tangible material' to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment; reasons must have a live link with formation of belief. 26. He also relied…