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.

Renuka Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1599/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A Pillai, Jm Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Gupta, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V.R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, AM & SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JM Assessment Year : 2004-05 Renuka Financial Services Ltd., Vs. ITO, 28, Najafgarh Road, Ward 15(4), New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAACR4748M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dinesh Gupta, FCA & Shri V. Raja Kumar. Department By : Shri V.R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 14.12.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 19.02.2016 ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-XVII, New Delhi, vide order dated 10th Januar…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Chaitanya Properties Pvt Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/205/2015HC Karnataka16 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260Section 45(2)

…on record which would fall outside the judicial scrutiny in the present appeal. 5. On the questions of law, the Tribunal has gone by the decision of the Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., reported at (2010) 320 ITR 561 in addition to other decisions of Karnataka High Court. In our view, if the Tribunal has taken the view based on the decision of the Apex Court and also of the jurisdictional High Court i.e., High Court of Karnataka, we do not find that any substantial questions of law would arise for consideration, as sought to be canvassed.…

ADIT (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. the Hong Kong & Shahghai Banking Corporation Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 3688/MUM/2009[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2016AY 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 5

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, ‘एल’ खंडपीठ अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “L” BENCH सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं राम लाल नेगी एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, , , , "याियक सद"य राम लाल नेगी "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.3688/Mum/09 ,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2000-01 वष" आयकर आयकर…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. R.T. Exports Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3721/MUM/2012[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2016AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram

Section 143(3)

…pect of Capital Work in progress." 2. 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) was right in allowing assessee's appeal by placing reliance on the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561) without appreciating the fact that there was no change of opinion in this case and looking to the nature of expenditure incurred there is only one opinion possible on the available facts, that is the expenditure claimed is nothing but Capital 2 M/s R T Exports Ltd in nature and it cannot be allowed as Revenue expenditure." 3. "Whether on the f…

Fibres & Fabrics International P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-11(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1352/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Fibres & Fabrics International Pvt. Ltd. No.21, E-1, 2Nd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore-560058. … Appellant Pan: Aaacf 6841 M Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(3), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 147Section 253Section 32(1)(ii)

…the assessment year 2006-07 though the reopening of the assessment has taken place within a period of four years. The power to reopen assessments is structured by law. The guiding principles which have been laid down by the Supreme Court in Kelvinator [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) must be fulfilled. In the present case, there was no tangible material, no new information and no fresh material which came before the Revenue in the course of assessment for the assessment year 2007-08 which can justify the reopening of the assessment for the assessment year 2006-07." (Emphasis supplied) 9. The facts of the present case are…

Gas & Power Investment Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 1(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1118/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.1118/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Gas & Power The Ito, Ward 1(1)(4), बनाम/ Investment Co. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Asian Building, Mumbai-40 020 Ground Floor, 17, R. Kamani Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai -400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg 3843J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Ishwer Rathi Shri Mahendra Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Miss Bharti Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ishwer RathiFor Respondent: Miss Bharti Singh

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40ASection 43BSection 619B

…pening amounts to an impermissible review. Here, there is nothing to show what triggered the issuance of notice of reassessment – no information or new facts which led the 11 AO to believe that full disclosure had not been made (Kelvinator of India Ltd [(2010)320 ITR 561 (SC)] and Orient Craft Ltd [(2003)354 ITR 536 (Delhi)] followed, Usha International [(2012)348 ITR 485 (Del) (FB)] referred)” In the case of CIT vs Jyoti Devi 218 CTR 264, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court held that since Revenue could not point out any information or material which had subsequently come to the notice of the AO to enable him to form…

Dr. Soumitra Dutta, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-55(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1236/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Roy, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sudip Guha, JCIT

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

…he AO and the assessment had been completed originally u/s 143(1)." 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 2 3 Dr. Soumitra Dutta, AY 2009-10 of a mere change of opinion, st…

Tara Chand Jain, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-45(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2282/KOL/2014[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 2282/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2005-06 Tara Chand Jain -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-45(1), Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Ackpj1876H) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri K.M.Roy, Fca For The Respondent : David Z. Chawngthu, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri K.M.Roy, FCAFor Respondent: David Z. Chawngthu, Addl.CIT

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

…recording of ITA No.2282/Kol/2014-Tara Chand Jain, A.Y.2005-06 3 impugned reasons is a sine qua none, before the AO can record reasons for reopening of the case. We begin with the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC), laying down that for reopening of the assessment, the AO should have in its possession ‘tangible material’. The term ‘tangible material’ has been understood and explained by various courts subsequently. There has been unanimity of the courts on this issue that in absence of fresh material indicating escaped income, the AO cannot assume juri…

R.P. Suvarna, Mumbai vs. CIT (33), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5536/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2006-07 Mr. R. P. Suvarna, Ito-18(3)(3), No.15, Rajanigandha Apts. Mumbai बनाम/ T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Vs. Mumbai-400016 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Anbps3240G

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50C

…(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…

Tata Communications Ltd (Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3417/MUM/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss, D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 244ASection 250

…mbay High Court in case of 3 I Infotech Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) after examining the true import of explanation 1 to section 147 and the legislative intent expressed similar view. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in much referred case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 has in clear terms held that even after the amendment of section 147 of the Act by the Direct Tax Laws Amendment Act, 1987 it cannot be construed that the AO has been given a wider power to reopen the assessment by giving go bye to the two basic conditions for reopening the assessment viz. there must be tangible material in possession of AO indic…

ACIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Communications Ltd ( Foprmerly Kknown As Videsh Sanchar Nigam, Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3326/MUM/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss, D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 244ASection 250

Rrb Energy Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1874/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Kesang Y Sherpa, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155JSection 80Section 80l

…lable to the assessee u/s 80-IA of the Act has already been considered by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2006-07, 2007-08 and returned findings in favour of the assessee. 10.5 Hon'ble Supreme Court in case cited as CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 651 has settled the issue as to reopening of the assessment by the Assessing Officer by holding that the Assessing Officer is not empowered to reopen the assessment on the issue which has already been examined by him at the time of original assessment. Operative part 12 I.T.A.No.1874./Del/2013 of the judgement cited as Kelvinator of India Ltd. (sup…

Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 1625/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde-ARFor Respondent: Jasbir Chauhan-CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 148Section 2Section 254(1)

…अिधकरण, ‘एल’ खंडपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “L” BENCH सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं राम लाल नेगी एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, , , , "याियक सद"य राम लाल नेगी "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.1625/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2007-08 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Morgan St…

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Steel International (India) Ltd, ( Formelry Known As Corus International India P. Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1790/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi

Section 115WSection 115w

…Vs. M/s. Tata Steel International (India) ltd. approved superannuation fund which was replied vide letter dated 25-09-2008. The ld. Counsel relied on the following decisions in support of the assessee’s case:- (i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited (2010) 320 ITR 561 SC (ii) B. J. Services Company Middle East Ltd. and others vs. DDIT dated 20 August, 2011 (Uttarakhand High Court) (iii) Siemens Information System Ltd. vs. ACIT (2007) 295 ITR 333 (Bom) (iv) ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) (v) Eveready Industries India Ltd. vs. JCIT [2000]-243 ITR 540 (Gau.) (vi) Bawa A…

DCIT, Circle-1, Kolkata vs. M/S Cheviot Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed and COs of assessee are allowed

ITA 530/KOL/2012[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kr. Pande, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…10B of the Act and also exemption on receipts relating to EMA. Accordingly, We find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against revenue by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. (2010) 310 ITR 561 (SC), wherein newly substituted provision of section 147 of the Act with effect from 01.04.1989 is interpreted by observing, that section 147 of the Act, as substituted w.e.f. 01.04.1989 does not postulates conferment of power upon the AO to initiate reassessment CO Nos. 44&45/K/2012 M/s. Cheviot Co. Ltd. AY 2003-04 & 2004-05 proceeding upon his…

Prakash Fatandas Jassuja, Thane vs. ITO WD 3(2), Thane

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4933/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133ASection 147

…e basis of statement of the assessee. The ld. counsel challenged the reopening u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act, by contending that the reopening is bad in law for which reliance was placed upon the following decisions:- i. CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii. Rallis India Ltd. vs ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 54 (Bom.) Shri Prakash Fatandas Jassuja. iii. Dr. J Mohan vs ACIT (2012)18 ITR (T) 363 (Chennai) and iv. ITO vs Bua Das (2006) 155 taxman 130 (Asr.) 2.2. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Shri V.S. Jadhav, strongly supported the reopening of the case by contending that reopening was not merely don…

Hdfc Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

ITA 3501/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri. Yogesh A. TharFor Respondent: Shri. Abhishek Sharma

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194JSection 40

…under section 147 of the Act on the basis of the very same material amounts to change of opinion. 4.3.3 As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court while affirming the view expressed by the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561(SC), there should be tangible material before the Assessing Officer from which he could entertain the belief that income of the assessee chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. In the case on hand, we find that it is apparent from the reasons recorded that there is no such new tangible material that came into the possession of the AO when he re…

Fives Stein India Projects Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 8, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/KOL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma, JCIT,Sr.DR

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

…O and the assessment had been 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 cha…

Graphite India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 11, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed as indicated above and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/KOL/2008[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2016AY 2000-01

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 8Section 80HSection 80I

…assessment without there being any new material coming to his possession thus was based on a change of opinion, which is not permissible in law as held, inter alia, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Kelvinator of India Limited reported in 320 ITR 561 and by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Debashis Moulik –vs.- ACIT reported in 370 ITR 660. He also invited our attention to a letter dated 23.03.2006 issued by the Assessing Officer (copy placed at pages 73 I.T.A. No. 398/KOL./2008 Assessment year: 2000-2001 & I.T.A. No. 537/KOL/2008 Assessment Year : 2000-2001 Page 8 of 13 & 74…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5611/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

…ible material in the possession of AO at the time of recording of impugned reasons is a sine qua none, before the AO can record reasons for reopening of the case. We begin with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC), laying down that for reopening of the assessment, the AO should have in its possession 'tangible material'. The term 'tangible material' has been understood and explained by various courts subsequently. There has been unanimity of the courts on this issue that in absence of fresh material indicating escaped income, the AO cannot assume juri…