Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT

102 ITR 287Supreme Court of India1976#743 most cited

What is Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT authority for?

The Supreme Court broadly defined 'information' for reassessment under Section 147 to include new facts, external sources, material already on record, or a correct understanding of law from judicial decisions. This definition enables reopening assessments based on subsequent information or mistakes.

137

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening of assessment · definition of information · reason to believe · escapement of income · fresh tangible material · mere change of opinion · live link · Section 147(b)

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 151Section 142(1)Section 68Section 115JBSection 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 147(b)fresh tangible materialsection 34(1)within four yearsfirst proviso to section 147kelvinatormere change of opinionsection 151(1)beyond four yearssection 148(2)change of opinionlive link

Judgments citing Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT

NATHARAM PANAJI CHOUDHARY,PUNE vs. I.T.O. WARD 8(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1826/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…rom the materials on record or from any enquiry or research into facts or law. There is a plethora of judgment that such information need not be from external source vide CIT and anr. vs. RinkuChakraborty 56 DTR 227 (Kar) and KalyanjiMavji and Company vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC). It is also pertinent to mention that for reopening of completed assessment u/s.148, tangible material need not be from outside the return of income. It can be obtained from the return of income or evidences on record itself. The reference may be had of ACIT vs. Kanga & Company (2010) – TIOL 464 ITAT Mumbai. It is also relevant to mention th…

NATHARAM PANAJI CHOUDHARY,PUNE vs. I.T.O. WARD 8(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1823/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…rom the materials on record or from any enquiry or research into facts or law. There is a plethora of judgment that such information need not be from external source vide CIT and anr. vs. RinkuChakraborty 56 DTR 227 (Kar) and KalyanjiMavji and Company vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC). It is also pertinent to mention that for reopening of completed assessment u/s.148, tangible material need not be from outside the return of income. It can be obtained from the return of income or evidences on record itself. The reference may be had of ACIT vs. Kanga & Company (2010) – TIOL 464 ITAT Mumbai. It is also relevant to mention th…

KAJAL BATRA,DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-52(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed as above

ITA 2419/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69A

…equent to the 5 Kajal Batra original assessment. Taxpayer would not be allowed to take advantage of an oversight or a mistake committed by tax authority. This principle is laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co. Vs CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287. c. It may be appreciated that the information with respect to the escapement of income may come from any source and if the assessee has not disclosed income with respect to the live link' with the information received the assessing officer is well within its right to reopen the case. In the case of ITO Vs Gurinder Kaur (ITAT, Del) 102 ITD 189 th…

YADAV RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

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

ITA 415/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Deepali Aggarwal
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…e Court, apart from the judgments of other High Courts, on the issue of reopening of the assessment as discussed below. 7.5 Reliance is placed on the following judicial precedents rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court: 1. Kalyanji Mavji & Co., vs CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC): 2. ITO vs Lakshmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) & 3. Raymond Woolen Mills vs ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC): 7.6 Also, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the following cases: (i) Peass Ltd. Industrial Engineers (P.) [2016] 76 taxmann.com 122 (Gujarat): in this case, it is held that-vs. DCIT "W…

AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 2000/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)

…the Act are valid in respect of information obtained in assessment proceedings of a subsequent year. Some case laws are as follows: 1. Raymond Woollen Mills Limited Vs. ITO & Anr. (SC) 236 ITR 34. 2. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (SC) 102 ITR 287. 5.2.6. In the case of ACIT Vs. Kanga & Co. 2010-TIOL-464-ITAT-Mumbai held that for reopening of assessment u/s,148 of the Act, the 'Tangible material' need not be from outside the return of income. 5.2.7 When an income liable to tax has escaped assessment in the original assessment proceedings due to oversight and inadvertence or a mistake commi…

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

ITA 66/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 151Section 153Section 153CSection 250

…. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC)(SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC), and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law." 35. In A. L. A. Firm (supra), the Supreme Court specifically dealt with propositions (2) and (4) quoted in paragraph 34 above and thereafter elucidated and explained that there was no difference between the observations of the Supreme Court in Kalyanji Maviji [19…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…ed valid reasons to believe, and followed due process by obtaining prior approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income- tax. 4. Judicial precedents such as ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. [291 ITR 500 (SC)] and Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT [102 ITR 287 (SC)] support the reopening in cases involving fresh material. Prayer In light of the above, it is humbly submitted that: 1. The reopening under Section 147 and the subsequent reassessment are valid, as they are based on tangible material and procedural compliance. 2. The CIT(A) erred in quashing the reassessment based on misinterpretation of…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 875/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…lid reasons to believe, and followed due\nprocess by obtaining prior approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income\ntax.\n\n4. Judicial precedents such as ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. [291\nITR 500 (SC)] and Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT [102 ITR 287 (SC)] support the\nreopening in cases involving fresh material.\n\nPrayer\n\nIn light of the above, it is humbly submitted that:\n\n1. the reopening under Section 147 and the subsequent reassessment are valid,\nas they are based on tangible material and procedural compliance.\n\n2. The CIT(A) erred in quashing the reassessment based on misinterpr…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 872/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…valid reasons to believe, and followed due\nprocess by obtaining prior approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income tax.\n4. Judicial precedents such as ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. [291\nITR 500 (SC)] and Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT [102 ITR 287 (SC)] support the\nreopening in cases involving fresh material.\nPrayer\nIn light of the above, it is humbly submitted that:\n1. The reopening under Section 147 and the subsequent reassessment are valid,\nas they are based on tangible material and procedural compliance.\n2. The CIT(A) erred in quashing the reassessment based on misinterpretation…

KAMLESH GUPTA AND SONS HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4080/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Kamlesh Gupta & Sons Huf Ito-19(2)(2) 95-C, Mittal Towers Piramal Chamber Nariman Point, Churchgate Vs. Lalbaug, Lower Mumbai-400 021. Parel, Mumbai-12. Pan : Aaehk4734K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Asif KarmaliFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Mantri
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Applying that test and on the basis of material which have come on record, exercise of Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 is not warranted." d) In the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co. Vs. CIT(SC)102 ITR 287, the Supreme Court, the Apex Court has explained the concept of "Information'' for re- opening the assessment in "detail. As per this decision, the word "information" would also include true and correct state of law derived from relevant judicial decisions either of the I.T. authorities or Courts of raw. Information may come from external sources…

DESH RAJ JAKHAR,GORDHANPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NEEM KA THANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1261/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Shaffi Mohd. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 5Section 69

…1.4 Judicial Precedents for Section 148: a) Yuvraj v. Union of India ((2009) 315 ITR 84 (Bom)): Held that reopening under Section 148 can be initiated even when time for issuing notice under Section 143(2) is available. b) Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT [(1976) 102 ITR 287 (SC)]: Confirmed that Section 148 can be invoked if there is new information or material leading to a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. 1.5 Key Distinctions: a) Nature: Section 143(2) is procedural for scrutiny, while Section 148 is substantive for reopening assessments. b) Timing: Section 143(2) applies after a retum is filed, whi…

CLE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6270/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth a/w Jitendra SanghviFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT/DR &
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…d to initiate reassessment proceeding. He also submitted that once the AO has recorded his reasons for reopening courts cannot go into the aspect of sufficiency of those reasons. He also referred following judicial pronouncements: “a. Kalyan Mavji v CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287 b. ITO v Lakhmani Mewal Das (SC) 103 ITR 437 c. Phool Chand Bajranj v ITO (SC) 203 ITR 456 d. Sri Krishna (P) Ltd. v CIT (SC) 221 ITR 538 e. Central Provinces Manganese Ore v ITO (SC) 191 ITR 662” The ld. DR further submitted that speaking order u/s 148A(d) was passed after informing the assessee and giving opportunity to submit its objection.…

CLE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6269/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth a/w Jitendra SanghviFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT/DR &
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…d to initiate reassessment proceeding. He also submitted that once the AO has recorded his reasons for reopening courts cannot go into the aspect of sufficiency of those reasons. He also referred following judicial pronouncements: “a. Kalyan Mavji v CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287 b. ITO v Lakhmani Mewal Das (SC) 103 ITR 437 c. Phool Chand Bajranj v ITO (SC) 203 ITR 456 d. Sri Krishna (P) Ltd. v CIT (SC) 221 ITR 538 e. Central Provinces Manganese Ore v ITO (SC) 191 ITR 662” The ld. DR further submitted that speaking order u/s 148A(d) was passed after informing the assessee and giving opportunity to submit its objection.…

MACK STAR MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4994/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)\nAND\nSHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER)\nITA No. 4994/MUM/2024\nAssessment Year: 2013-14\nMack Star Marketing Pvt. Ltd.,\nUnit 404, Kaledonia, 19 Sahar Road,\nAndheri (E),\nMumbai-400069.\nPAN NO. AADCM 7564 K\nAppellant\nNational Faceless Appeal Centre.\nVs.\nRespondent\nAssessee by\n: Mr. Yash Varmani\nRevenue by\n: Mr. R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR\nDate of Hearing\n: 17/12/2024\nDate of pronouncement\n: 21/01/2025\nORDER\nPER OM PRAKASH KANT (Accou

Section 144BSection 147

…), but same cannot be by way of a dream or rethinking\non same material, which will be in the nature of review of the\nassessment rather than reassessment. In the case of CIT & Ars v. Rinku\nChakraborthy 56 DTR 227 (Kar) and Kalyanji Mavji and Company v.\nCIT 102 ITR 287 (SC) it is held that such information need not be from\nexternal sources only. The information obtained in assessment\nproceedings of subsequent assessment year can also be utilized for\nreopening of the completed assessment (Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. v.\nITO & Others 236 ITR 34 (SC) and Revathy Cp Equipment Ltd. vs\nDeputy Commissioner of Income…

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

ITA 644/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate and Ms. Somya Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 3

…sessment proceedings- hence there is no question of change of opinion. Therefore notices under section 148 of the Act cannot be quashed and reliance is heavily placed amongst others on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kalyanji Mauji & Co. vs. CIT- 102 ITR 287 (SC) and that of Bombay High Court in case of Yuvraj Vs. UOI Bombay- (2009) 315 ITR 84 wherein it was held that points not decided while passing assessment order u/s 143(3) is not change of opinion and that assessment was opened validly. The jurisdictional High Court judgment in case of Ropar District, Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. Vs. CI…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3 4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 1374/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Choughule
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)Section 80G

…see on the issue, no finding either positive or negative, can be said to have been arrived at during the course of original assessment proceedings. 17. Hence, there is no question of change of opinion as held in the judgments (i) Kalyanji Mavji and Co Vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC); (ii) Esskat Engineering Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT 247 ITR 818 and (iii) ITO Vs. Purushottom Das Bangur and Anr. 224 ITR 362 (SC). The details of such case laws are submitted herewith for your kind perusal and your favourable consideration.” (Emphasis Supplied) 11. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. On perusal of reasons…

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1426/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

…isions would amount to a change of opinion on material already considered by him. The Revenue contends that it is open to him to do so, and on that basis to reopen the assessment under section 147(b). Reliance is placed on Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC), where a Bench of two learned judges of this court observed that a case where income had escaped assessment due to the “oversight, inadvertence or mistake” of the Income-tax Officer must fall within section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It appears to us, with respect, that the proposition is stated too widely and travels farth…

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1425/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

…isions would amount to a change of opinion on material already considered by him. The Revenue contends that it is open to him to do so, and on that basis to reopen the assessment under section 147(b). Reliance is placed on Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC), where a Bench of two learned judges of this court observed that a case where income had escaped assessment due to the “oversight, inadvertence or mistake” of the Income-tax Officer must fall within section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It appears to us, with respect, that the proposition is stated too widely and travels farth…

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,DCIT, CIR. 8(1) vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1424/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

…isions would amount to a change of opinion on material already considered by him. The Revenue contends that it is open to him to do so, and on that basis to reopen the assessment under section 147(b). Reliance is placed on Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC), where a Bench of two learned judges of this court observed that a case where income had escaped assessment due to the “oversight, inadvertence or mistake” of the Income-tax Officer must fall within section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It appears to us, with respect, that the proposition is stated too widely and travels farth…

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1423/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

…isions would amount to a change of opinion on material already considered by him. The Revenue contends that it is open to him to do so, and on that basis to reopen the assessment under section 147(b). Reliance is placed on Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC), where a Bench of two learned judges of this court observed that a case where income had escaped assessment due to the “oversight, inadvertence or mistake” of the Income-tax Officer must fall within section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It appears to us, with respect, that the proposition is stated too widely and travels farth…

Showing 1–20 of 137 · Page 1 of 7