CIT v. Usha International Ltd.

348 ITR 485High Court2012#376 most cited

What is CIT v. Usha International Ltd. authority for?

A reassessment is invalid due to 'mere change of opinion' if an issue was raised during original assessment but no addition was made, implying the issue was examined. However, if a subject matter was not examined and no opinion was formed, the principle of 'change of opinion' does not apply.

231

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Usha International Ltd · Section 147 · Section 148 · change of opinion · mere change of opinion · reassessment validity · query raised no addition · issue not examined · reason to believe · Kelvinator principle · fresh tangible material · escapement of income

Also reported as

25 Taxmann.com 200210 Taxmann 188254 CTR 509

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 142(1)Section 151Section 144BSection 271(1)(c)Section 234B
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

fresh tangible materialfirst proviso to section 147kelvinatormaterial facts necessary for assessmentmere change of opinionsanctioning authorityfull and true disclosurechange of opinionlive linktangible materialescapement of incomereason to believe

Judgments citing CIT v. Usha International Ltd.

G S BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6581/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] G.S.Buildwell Pvt.Ltd. Vs Ito A-12, Swasthya Vihar, Ward-10(1) East Delhi, Delhi-110092. Delhi Pan-Aaccg1781H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kr. Dhanistha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08.04.2026

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

…view/forming an opinion. In these circumstances, the reasons in support of the notice proceed on a mere change of opinion and would be completely without jurisdiction" Further, reliance is placed on the following authorities: - CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Delhi) (Full Bench); - CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.: 320 ITR 561 (SC); - CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310(Del); - CIT vs. ForanerFranch 264 ITR 566 (SC) - Indian Oil Corporation 159 ITR 956(SC) - Associated Stone Industry Limited 224ITR 560 (SC) - CIT vs. Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd378 ITR 351 (Del.) Further, it is apparent from rea…

CISCO COMMERCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PCIT, BENGALURU-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1235/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. N. Hemalatha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 194JSection 263Section 40

…such provisions are outstanding in earlier years , As previously mentioned, this is evident from the financial statements. 36. The authorized representative additionally presented a copy of the Delhi High Court decision in CIT v. USHA International Limited, 348 ITR 485, which addressed the matter of change of opinion. In the Page 23 of 24 proceedings before us, it has not been contended that there is a change of opinion regarding the approval of the specific refund claim. 37. The assessee also submitted a copy of the decision of the Honourable Karnataka High Court in case of CIT versus L F DeSilva[ 192 ITR 54…

BANGALORE UNION SERVICES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2483/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (by Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 2(22)(e)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार "ग"र, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम$ BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2483/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bangalore Union Services Private Limited, DCIT, Unit No.705, Delta Wing, vs. Corporate Circle -1(2), Raheja Towers, 7th Floor, Chennai. 177, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. [PAN:AABCB-3369-B] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) अपीलाथ' क* ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. S. Sridhar…

QUETZAL BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HARYANA

ITA 6409/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 234BSection 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6409/Del/2025 Assessment Year 2016-17 Quetzal Buildtech Private Limited H. NO.003, Sec 41- 42 Daisy Tower, Omaxe Green Valley, Suraj Kund, Road, Haryana PAN No.AAACQ3337K Vs. ITO Ward- 2 (1) Faridabad Haryana Appellant Respondent Appellant Respondent Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Advocate Sh. Archit Pandey, Advocate Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, JM, This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of…

CISCO SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1234/BANG/2025[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37(1)

…epted by the department. Hence, reopening the issue in revisionary proceedings is unjustified and contrary to law. 13.2 The Ld. AR also placed reliance on judicial precedents including Nya International (2025) 482 ITR 281 (SC), Usha International Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 485 (Delhi), and Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 14 SCC 421, to reinforce that section 263 of the Act cannot be used to substitute one plausible view with another. The AO’s view, even if brief, cannot be treated as erroneous when it is based on material evidence and consistent with past practice. 13.3 The Ld. AR concluded by ar…

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

ITA 1670/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…s that the claim of reopening is a change of opinion is not applicable for the year under consideration as there was no scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. She submits that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Usha International Ltd.348 ITR 485 (Delhi) clarified that reopening in a non-scrutinized case based on fresh evidence is not a change of opinion. Further, she relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 22 I.T.A. Nos.1667 to 1670/Chny/24 case of Eicher Limited v. CIT 294 ITR 310 (SC) and argued that the change of opinion applies only when the Assessing Officer revi…

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-4,, CHENNAI

ITA 1667/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Street, Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 4, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit 28.10.2025 21.01.2026 : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश/Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…s that the claim of reopening is a change of opinion is not applicable for the year under consideration as there was no scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. She submits that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Usha International Ltd.348 ITR 485 (Delhi) clarified that reopening in a non-scrutinized case based on fresh evidence is not a change of opinion. Further, she relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Limited v. CIT 294 ITR 310 (SC) and argued that the change of opinion applies only when the Assessing Officer revisits previously assessed facts. 24.…

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 344/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

…without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon’ble Court quashed the reassessment, noting that there was no independent verification or inquiry by the AO. It amounted to borrowed satisfaction. e)CIT v. Usha International Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 485 (Del HC) (Full Bench), wherein it is held that if an issue was properly scrutinized during original assessment and a conscious decision was made by the AO, then reopening is barred as it amounts to change of opinion. f) Devansh Exports vs. ACIT, I.T.A no. 2178/Kol/2017, dtd: 15/10/2018 (ITAT)(Kol), wherein it has been observed that the informatio…

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 343/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

…without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon’ble Court quashed the reassessment, noting that there was no independent verification or inquiry by the AO. It amounted to borrowed satisfaction. e)CIT v. Usha International Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 485 (Del HC) (Full Bench), wherein it is held that if an issue was properly scrutinized during original assessment and a conscious decision was made by the AO, then reopening is barred as it amounts to change of opinion. f) Devansh Exports vs. ACIT, I.T.A no. 2178/Kol/2017, dtd: 15/10/2018 (ITAT)(Kol), wherein it has been observed that the informatio…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2445/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…decision of the Delhi High Court has Court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd: 320 ITR 561(SC). Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Usha International Limited: 348 ITR 485 wherein the Court held that re-assessinent DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd. proceedings will be invalid in case an issue or query is raised but thereafter the assessing officer does not make any addition in the assessment order On perusal of the aforesaid, it will kindly be appreciated that the Court clearly held that in case where query is rai…

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…decision of the Delhi High Court has Court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd: 320 ITR 561(SC). Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Usha International Limited: 348 ITR 485 wherein the Court held that re-assessinent DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd. proceedings will be invalid in case an issue or query is raised but thereafter the assessing officer does not make any addition in the assessment order On perusal of the aforesaid, it will kindly be appreciated that the Court clearly held that in case where query is rai…

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…decision of the Delhi High Court has Court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd: 320 ITR 561(SC). Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Usha International Limited: 348 ITR 485 wherein the Court held that re-assessinent DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd. proceedings will be invalid in case an issue or query is raised but thereafter the assessing officer does not make any addition in the assessment order On perusal of the aforesaid, it will kindly be appreciated that the Court clearly held that in case where query is rai…

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2442/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…decision of the Delhi High Court has Court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd: 320 ITR 561(SC). Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Usha International Limited: 348 ITR 485 wherein the Court held that re-assessinent DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd. proceedings will be invalid in case an issue or query is raised but thereafter the assessing officer does not make any addition in the assessment order On perusal of the aforesaid, it will kindly be appreciated that the Court clearly held that in case where query is rai…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS P.LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 200/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…decision of the Delhi High Court has Court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd: 320 ITR 561(SC). Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Usha International Limited: 348 ITR 485 wherein the Court held that re-assessinent DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd. proceedings will be invalid in case an issue or query is raised but thereafter the assessing officer does not make any addition in the assessment order On perusal of the aforesaid, it will kindly be appreciated that the Court clearly held that in case where query is rai…

SIGMA PARADISE,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, WARD 2(2)(1), GHAZIABAD

The appeal is allowed

ITA 823/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sigma Paradise, Vs Dcit, Km-78, Kavi Nagar, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan:Aazfs9643L (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca; & Shri Gagan R. Khandelwal & Shri Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA; &For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 4Section 50CSection 6

…as again raised the issue regarding objection to reopening at the appeal stage which was already addressed by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. 5.7 The full bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Usha International Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 485 (Del.) had examined in detail as to what constitutes change of opinion. If a subject-matter, entry or claim/deduction is not examined by an Assessing Officer, it cannot be presumed that he must have examined the claim/deduction or the entry, and, therefore, it is a case of “change of opinion”. When at the first instance, in the original assessmen…

MONOTECH SYSTEMS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP. CIRCLE-4(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1021/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. J. Prabhakar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T
Section 147Section 234BSection 36Section 37(1)Section 45

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार "ग"र, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम# BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:1021/Chny/2025 "नधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Monotech Systems Limited, DCIT, Third Floor, City Centre, vs. Corporate Circle -4(1), 39, Thirumalai Pillai Road, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [PAN:AABCM-8821-D] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent) अपीलाथ& क) ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. J. Prabhakar, F.C.A. '(यथ& क) ओर…

HITESH KUMAR PRITHVIRAJ KAWAD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,NON-CORPORTEN CIRCLE-4(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 352/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी ट" वक", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम$ BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:352/Chny/2024 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Hitesh Kumar Prithviraj Kawad, DCIT, No.57, 1st Floor, vs. Non-Corporate Circle -4(1), Narayana Mudali Street, Chennai. Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079. [PAN:AAGPK-0013-P] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) अपीलाथ' क* ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ()यथ' क* ओर से/Respo…

UDAY PUNJ,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

In the result, the reassessment proceedings initiated in this case is bad in law

ITA 3087/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Uday Punj, Vs. Dcit, Circle 19 (1), Chimes, New Delhi. 55, Sultanpur Farms, New Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaapp1309F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rahul Khare, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Order : 30.10.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 18.03.2025 For Assessment Year 2013-14 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Learned Cit-A Erred In Fact & In Law In Confirming The Reopening Of The Case U/S 147/148 Without Appreciating The Facts Which Is Not Only Bad In Law But Also Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 73

…sumption of jurisdiction under section 147/148 of the Act being hit by the judicial bar of "change of opinion". Reliance in this regard is placed on the Full Bench decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Usha International Ltd., [2012] 348 ITR 485 (Delhi HC) and the cases of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. DCIT, [2025] 477 ITR 725 (Delhi HC); S.B. Packagings Ltd. v. ACIT, [2025] 482 ITR 456 (Delhi HC). 5. Admittedly, in the present case, the AO vide notice dated 12/06/2015 issued under section 142(1) of the Act, specifically raised a query in relation to b/f losses ,which was duly responded by…

MAHASHIAN DI HATTI (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT-4, NEW DELHI

ITA 1987/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80G

…used to be earlier in the physical procedure. Therefore, the allegations need to be levelled only in terms of the Faceless assessment proceedings procedures. As elaborated by the Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in CIT v Usha International Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 485 (Del) section 114 of Evidence Act raises presumption that official acts have been regularly done. There are no reasons to presume that the FAU has not followed the said SOP. 1.1 As per the SOP, the initial notice_u/s_142(1) was required to be issued considering 360% information/portal etc. where all the information including history and other nat…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 43(6), NEW DELHI vs. MUNISH BAJAJ AND SONS HUF, DELHI

ITA 2782/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 73(1)

…1 ITO v. Munish Bajaj & Sons A.Y. 2010-11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income-tax Officer, Vs Munish Bajaj and Sons HUF, Ward-43(6), New Delhi. C-619, Sarasvati Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi-110034. PAN: AAHHM 2371 P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Department represented by Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing 07.05.2025 Date of pronouncement 30.06.2025 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appeal, filed by…

Showing 1–20 of 231 · Page 1 of 12

...