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)

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

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

ITA 140/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…

Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali, Kozhikode vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 888/COCH/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…nd in support of his contention reliance was placed on the following decisions: (i) ACITvs. Marico Limited (2020) (117 taxmann.com 244) (SC) (ii) DcIT vs. Financial Software and Systems Private Limited (447 ITR 370)(SC) (iii) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd (320 ITR 561) (SC) Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali vs. ACIT (iv) CIT vs.Malayala Manorama Limited (95 Taxmann.com 136)(Kerala) (v) Arun Gupta vs.CIT (371 ITR 394) (Allahabad.) 10. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed the above submissions and supported the orders of the lower authorities. 11. We heard the rival submissions and perused the m…

Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali, Kozhikode vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 881/COCH/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…nd in support of his contention reliance was placed on the following decisions: (i) ACITvs. Marico Limited (2020) (117 taxmann.com 244) (SC) (ii) DcIT vs. Financial Software and Systems Private Limited (447 ITR 370)(SC) (iii) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd (320 ITR 561) (SC) Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali vs. ACIT (iv) CIT vs.Malayala Manorama Limited (95 Taxmann.com 136)(Kerala) (v) Arun Gupta vs.CIT (371 ITR 394) (Allahabad.) 10. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed the above submissions and supported the orders of the lower authorities. 11. We heard the rival submissions and perused the m…

Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali, Kozhikode vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 880/COCH/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…nd in support of his contention reliance was placed on the following decisions: (i) ACITvs. Marico Limited (2020) (117 taxmann.com 244) (SC) (ii) DcIT vs. Financial Software and Systems Private Limited (447 ITR 370)(SC) (iii) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd (320 ITR 561) (SC) Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali vs. ACIT (iv) CIT vs.Malayala Manorama Limited (95 Taxmann.com 136)(Kerala) (v) Arun Gupta vs.CIT (371 ITR 394) (Allahabad.) 10. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed the above submissions and supported the orders of the lower authorities. 11. We heard the rival submissions and perused the m…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Speciality Papers Limited, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5054/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sharma 0 Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148ASection 153CSection 250

…en by the AO. For the Asst. Year 2013-14, the original assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) rws 153C of the Act. The appellant relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Speciality Papers Limited. of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kelvinator India Ltd (320 ITR 561) (SC). The excerpts of the said judgement are given below: "Change of Opinion: The court held that the concept of "change of opinion cannot be a reason for reopening an assessment. Reason to Believe: The assessing officer must have "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment, and this reason must be based on tangible material. Reassess…

Kizhakethil Prasad, Ernakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Kochi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 272/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessmentyear:2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 148

…Ltd. reported in 315 CTR (SC) 159 for the proposition that the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of change of opinion is not tenable. Counsel for the assessee thereafter relied upon the judgement in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator reported in 320 ITR 561, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the AO has no power to review. 7. Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Before deciding whether it is a case of change of opinion or not, we would like to refer to the questionnaire issued by the AO…

R C Advisors Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Geetha Rani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…ence of any tangible material. In the absence of any tangible material, reopening of the assessment already concluded could not have been done. Such is the mandate of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Page 5 of 5 Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 wherein it is held that the AO has power to reopen, provided there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Such reasons must have also live link with the formation of the belief. Merely reappraisal of the same material which amounts to review and not reassessment. In view of the above fac…

Anita Jha, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2344/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahmananita Jha, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 2, 112, Second Floor, Delhi. Ghaziabad Ashiana Green Apartments, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad – 201 014 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Afcpj7394B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Advocate Shri Shailesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Madhur Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 Date Of Order : 27.06.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-23, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 16.03.2024 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Raised A Jurisdictional Issue Of Reopening Of The Assessment Without Disposing Of Various Objections Raised By The Assessee. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Brought To Our Notice Relevant Sequence Of Dates

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 148

…t the assessment was passed vide order dated 29.03.2022 whereas the objections were disposed off only on 07.03.2024. He prayed that as per the provisions of section 148 and also decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.: 320 ITR 561 (SC), it is mandate and duty of the AO to dispose off the objections raised by the assessee before initiating proceedings u/s 148 of the Act at least before passing the assessment order and he prayed that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO is bad in law and void ab initio. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue submitted that n…

Das Offshore Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3890/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Das Offshore Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sagar Uday, Plot No. F-3, Tax, Circle 1(2), Agroli, Sector 29, Mumbai Behind Cidco Bhawan, Vs. Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai - 400614 Maharashtra (Pan: Aaacd5996K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Mr. Fenil Bhatt, Ramesh Jain, Cas Revenue : Shri. Mahadevan A.M. Krishanan, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1055302006(1), Dated 22.08.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(2), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 27.11.2017 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Mr. Fenil Bhatt, Ramesh Jain, CAsFor Respondent: Shri. Mahadevan A.M. Krishanan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Das Offshore Limited Deputy Commissioner of Income Sagar Uday, Plot No. F-3, Tax, Circle 1(2), Agroli, Sector 29, Mumbai Behind CIDCO Bhawan, Vs. CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai - 400614 Maharashtra (PAN: AAACD5996K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Mr. Fenil Bhatt, Ramesh Jain, CAs Revenue : Shri. Mahadevan A.M. Krishanan, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 22.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.06.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:…

DCIT, CC-1(4), Kolkata vs. Kkalpana Industries India Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 452/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.452/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 2B, Pretoria Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 13.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070338584(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Ms. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Revenue Has Been Filed Belatedly By 28 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 28 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate and Ms. Puja Somani, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 45

…revenue.' A mere change in the opinion would not confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to initiate a proceeding under section 147." The above case was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator Of India Ltd reported in 120101 320 ITR 561 (SC) and it was held that, "The concept of "change of opinion" on the part of the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment does not stand obliterated after the substitution of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Acts, 1987 and 1989. After the amendment, the Assessing Officer has to have reason to believe t…

Ct. Ramanathan (HUF), Pudukkottai vs. PCIT 1, Madurai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 761/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.761/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 C.T.Ramanathan(Huf), Income Tax Officer, No.7/45, Ct.Rm.S.House, M.St.S. Street Ward-1, Kulipirai, Pudukottai Dist, Pudukottai. Tamil Nadu-622 402. [Pan: Aaahc0701L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.V.Subbarayan, Dcit(Retd.) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.M.K.Biju, Cir Dr By Virtual. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr.V.Subbarayan, DCIT(Retd.)For Respondent: Mr.M.K.Biju, CIR DR by virtual

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3

…s in a proper and bonafide manner. This view is confirmed by the full bench decision of the Delhi high court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd (256 ITR 1) (Delhi FB), was upheld by the Supreme court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kelvinator Of India Ltd ( 320 ITR 561)(SC). 15. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Marico Ltd., vs. ACIT in writ petition No.1917 of 2019 dated 21.08.2019, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has clearly pointed out once a query has been raised by the AO during the assessment proceedings and the assessee has responded to that query, it would necessarily follow that the AO ha…

Raghu Satyanaryana Kollu, Kodad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 413/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ned CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding the act of the learned A.O. who reopened the assessment without any tangible information on record, which is against the decision of the Hon. Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd (2010) 187 Taxmann 312. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding the act of the learned A.O., Ward-1, Suryapet who issued the notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31/03/2021 which is invalid as it has not been digitally signed by him as per the procedure prescribed and hence is not a valid notice. Hence, any…

Raghu Satyanaryana Kollu, Kodad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 412/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ned CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding the act of the learned A.O. who reopened the assessment without any tangible information on record, which is against the decision of the Hon. Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd (2010) 187 Taxmann 312. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding the act of the learned A.O., Ward-1, Suryapet who issued the notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31/03/2021 which is invalid as it has not been digitally signed by him as per the procedure prescribed and hence is not a valid notice. Hence, any…

ACIT Circle-64(1), New Delhi vs. Ashima Neb, Noida

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 4206/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3953 और 4206 /िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Gautam Jain, Parth Singhal & Ankit Kumar, Advocates

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 4

…ial available with the Assessing Officer. The reason to believe should be self speaking and self contained reflecting independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 has held, “…….. Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is “tangible material” to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief”. In the instant case “tangible material” for the AO to form belief is missing, leave aside a live link between th…

ACIT Circle-64(1), New Delhi vs. Ashima Neb, Noida

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 3953/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3953 और 4206 /िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Gautam Jain, Parth Singhal & Ankit Kumar, Advocates

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 4

…ial available with the Assessing Officer. The reason to believe should be self speaking and self contained reflecting independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 has held, “…….. Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is “tangible material” to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief”. In the instant case “tangible material” for the AO to form belief is missing, leave aside a live link between th…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sea Point Trading & Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1731/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judical Member & Shri Manish Agarwalasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Sea Point Trading & Income Tax, Builders Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-2, Vs. B-4/43, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi. Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029. Pan: Aabcs0741C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [Ld. Cit(A), In Short], Dt. 29.01.2026 In Appeal No. 16/2015-16 For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short). 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Correct In Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Laws In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.6,35,00,000/- Made By Ao On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act Received From M/S Manan Merchandise Pvt. Ltd.”

Section 127Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asst. Commissioner of M/s. Sea Point Trading & Income Tax, Builders Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-2, Vs. B-4/43, 2nd Floor, New Delhi. Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029. PAN: AABCS0741C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. and Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department by Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 18/06/2025 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by th…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Belisma Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1728/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Acit, Vs M/S. Belisma Buildcon Central Circle-2, Pvt.Ltd.,77, Ss House, Sector-44, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana-122003. Pan-Aadcb9647C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2025 Order

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…ITA No.1728/Del/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS.MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2011-12] ACIT, vs M/s. Belisma Buildcon Central Circle-2, Pvt.Ltd.,77, SS House, Sector-44, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana-122003. PAN-AADCB9647C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent by Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 18.06.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal has been filed by the…

Bee Gee Construction Co, Mohali vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Chandigarh

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 597/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.597/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Bee Gee Construction Co Dcit Sco-1 Neelkanth Shopping Plaza Circle 3 (1) बनाम/ Vs. Chandigarh Road Aaykar Bhawan Nac Zirakpur-140603 Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfb-1882-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.572/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit M/S Bee Gee Construction Co Circle 3 (1) बनाम/ Sco-1 Neelkanth Shopping Plaza Aaykar Bhawan Chandigarh Road Vs. Chandigarh Nac Zirakpur-140603 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfb-1882-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011- 12Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)]

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.597/CHANDI/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s Bee Gee Construction Co DCIT SCO-1 Neelkanth Shopping Plaza Circle 3 (1) बनाम/ Vs. Chandigarh Road Aaykar Bhawan NAC Zirakpur-140603 Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAHFB-1882-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.572/CHANDI/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) DCIT M/s Bee Gee Construction Co Circle 3 (1) बनाम/ SCO-1 Neelkant…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh vs. Bee Gee Construction Co, Chandigarh

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 572/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.597/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Bee Gee Construction Co Dcit Sco-1 Neelkanth Shopping Plaza Circle 3 (1) बनाम/ Vs. Chandigarh Road Aaykar Bhawan Nac Zirakpur-140603 Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfb-1882-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.572/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit M/S Bee Gee Construction Co Circle 3 (1) बनाम/ Sco-1 Neelkanth Shopping Plaza Aaykar Bhawan Chandigarh Road Vs. Chandigarh Nac Zirakpur-140603 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfb-1882-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011- 12Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)]

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.597/CHANDI/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s Bee Gee Construction Co DCIT SCO-1 Neelkanth Shopping Plaza Circle 3 (1) बनाम/ Vs. Chandigarh Road Aaykar Bhawan NAC Zirakpur-140603 Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAHFB-1882-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.572/CHANDI/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) DCIT M/s Bee Gee Construction Co Circle 3 (1) बनाम/ SCO-1 Neelkant…

ACIT 2 2 1, Mumbai vs. Jyoti Structures Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2661/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. D/R

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234CSection 68

…e completed assessment on the basis of all the evidence considered at the time of original assessment order is nothing but change of opinion. Drawing support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), the ld. CIT(A) set aside the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and the subsequent re-assessment order was held to be no in accordance with law and hence not valid. 6. Before us, the ld. D/R strongly supported the findings of the AO and relied upon the reasons given for the reopening of the assessment. 7. We have given a thoughtful considerat…

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

What is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

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

Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali, Kozhikode vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Kozhikode

Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali, Kozhikode vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Kozhikode

Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali, Kozhikode vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Kozhikode

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Speciality Papers Limited, Mumbai

Kizhakethil Prasad, Ernakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Kochi

R C Advisors Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

Anita Jha, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Delhi

Das Offshore Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Mumbai

DCIT, CC-1(4), Kolkata vs. Kkalpana Industries India Limited, Kolkata

Ct. Ramanathan (HUF), Pudukkottai vs. PCIT 1, Madurai

Raghu Satyanaryana Kollu, Kodad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Suryapet

Raghu Satyanaryana Kollu, Kodad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Suryapet

ACIT Circle-64(1), New Delhi vs. Ashima Neb, Noida

ACIT Circle-64(1), New Delhi vs. Ashima Neb, Noida

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sea Point Trading & Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Belisma Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

Bee Gee Construction Co, Mohali vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Chandigarh

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh vs. Bee Gee Construction Co, Chandigarh

ACIT 2 2 1, Mumbai vs. Jyoti Structures Limited, Mumbai