Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT

102 ITR 287Supreme Court of India1976#739 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 366,339 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)
Read the full judgment

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

Vinod K Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1264/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: S/s. Saboo & Deepak S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…n the issue, no finding either positive or negative can be said to have been arrived at during the course of original assessment proceedings. Hence, there is no question of change of opinion as held in the following judgements: 1. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC) 2. Esskay Engineering P. Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR 818 3. ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur & Anr. 224 ITR 362 (SC) In the light of the above discussion, the contention of the assessee that the present case is of change of opinion has to be rejected. 2.4.22 The second question arises for consideration is whether the appellant had made full and true…

A.C.I.T Cir - 36, Kolkata. vs. M/S Sri Ram Commercial Co, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 623/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…th the jurisdictional High Court as well as the Apex Court. Under these circumstances, a taxpayer cannot be allowed to take advantage of an oversight or mistake committed by the taxing Authority as has been held in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co vs. CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287. In the case of Simplex Concrete piles (India) Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT & Ors. (Cal) 255 ITR 49 reopening after four years has been held to be valid in view of subsequent decision of Supreme Court on an issue which was accepted at the time of original assessment. Given the above facts I am of the view that the appellant had failed to disclose fully an…

Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Tea Propoters (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2161/KOL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…th the jurisdictional High Court as well as the Apex Court. Under these circumstances, a taxpayer cannot be allowed to take advantage of an oversight or mistake committed by the taxing Authority as has been held in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co vs. CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287. In the case of Simplex Concrete piles (India) Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT & Ors. (Cal) 255 ITR 49 reopening after four years has been held to be valid in view of subsequent decision of Supreme Court on an issue which was accepted at the time of original assessment. Given the above facts I am of the view that the appellant had failed to disclose fully an…

M/S Tea Promoters (India) Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T RG - 4, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1897/KOL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…th the jurisdictional High Court as well as the Apex Court. Under these circumstances, a taxpayer cannot be allowed to take advantage of an oversight or mistake committed by the taxing Authority as has been held in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co vs. CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287. In the case of Simplex Concrete piles (India) Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT & Ors. (Cal) 255 ITR 49 reopening after four years has been held to be valid in view of subsequent decision of Supreme Court on an issue which was accepted at the time of original assessment. Given the above facts I am of the view that the appellant had failed to disclose fully an…

M/S Tea Promoters (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 4, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1841/KOL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…th the jurisdictional High Court as well as the Apex Court. Under these circumstances, a taxpayer cannot be allowed to take advantage of an oversight or mistake committed by the taxing Authority as has been held in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co vs. CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287. In the case of Simplex Concrete piles (India) Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT & Ors. (Cal) 255 ITR 49 reopening after four years has been held to be valid in view of subsequent decision of Supreme Court on an issue which was accepted at the time of original assessment. Given the above facts I am of the view that the appellant had failed to disclose fully an…

DCIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Intelnet Global Services P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7428/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-1(2)(1), M/S Intelnet Global Services R. No.535, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Mindspace, Malad West, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P C.O. No.99/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7428/Mum/2014) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Intelnet Global Services Dcit-1(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, R. No.535, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Mindspace, Malad West, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400064 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…ndian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 439 (Bom) (para 17) 3i Infotech Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2010] 329 ITR 257 (Bom) (para 26) International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (U. K.) Ltd. [2001] 5 SCC 265 (para 30) Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) (paras 9, 33, 34, 35) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Asst. Director of I. T. [2007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi) (para 12) Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 245 ITR 360 (SC) (para 31) Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC) (para 34) Muthukrishna Reddiar v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503 (Ker) (para 9) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR…

Asst CIT 4(3), Mumbai vs. Muimbai Stock Brokers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 6369/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit-4(3), M/S Mumbai Stock 6Th Floor, R. No.649, बनाम/ Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, R No.10A, 1St Floor, 7/10, Vs. M.K. Road, Botwala Building, Mumbai-4020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400023 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcm4133A

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 88E

…ndian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 439 (Bom) (para 17) 3i Infotech Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2010] 329 ITR 257 (Bom) (para 26) International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (U. K.) Ltd. [2001] 5 SCC 265 (para 30) Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) (paras 9, 33, 34, 35) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Asst. Director of I. T. [2007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi) (para 12) Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 245 ITR 360 (SC) (para 31) Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC) (para 34) Muthukrishna Reddiar v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503 (Ker) (para 9) 9 M/s Mumbai Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd. C.O.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Barista Coffee Company Ltd., New Delhi

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5324/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Barista Coffee Company Ltd, Circle-2(1), Room No. 398D, Shop No. 55, Community Centre, Vs. Cr Building, New Delhi Basant Lok Market, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aabcb798A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. KK Jaiswal, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35D

…Income-tax Officer in this case on the basis of which he is seeking to reopen the assessments under clause (b) of section 147. We find none. Indeed, this appears to be a case of mere change of opinion. The principles enunciated in Kalyanji Mavji's case [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) cannot save the impugned action of the Income-tax Officer." 15. In the present case we could not find any such observation or reference to any tangible material in the reasons so recorded. Moreover we also could not find any observation of the assessing officer about failure of the assessee to disclose income fully and truly. In view of thi…

Yes Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 1991/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Ms. Krupa Gandhi and Shri Nimesh Jain-ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vidisha Kalra-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 35DSection 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…h v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (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 Kal yanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law." 1991 & 2021/M/15-Yes Bank In Sheth Brothers,(251 ITR 270)the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court,has held as under: " On a reading of a recent decision of this court in the case of Adani Exports v. Deputy CIT [1999] 240 ITR 224, it is seen that the Central Board of Dire…

Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4504/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2005-06 Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Acit, Delux Apartment, Circle-16(2), बनाम/ Altamount Road, Matru Mandir Bldg. Vs. Mumbai-400026 Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Afupg3313H ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 53ESection 54ESection 56

…an Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 439 (Bom) (para 17) 3i Infotech Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2010] 329 ITR 257 (Bom) (para 26) International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (U. K.) Ltd. [2001] 5 SCC 265 (para 30) Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) (paras 9, 33, 34, 35) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Asst. Director of I. T. [2007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi) (para 12) Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 245 ITR 360 (SC) (para 31) Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC) (para 34) Muthukrishna Reddiar v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503 (Ker) (para 9) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 25…

ITO 3(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Everlon Synthetics P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 6965/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6965/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Income Tax Officer 3(1)(4), M/S Everlon Synthetics बनाम/ R. No. 666, Pvt. Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhawan,M.K. Road, 67, Regent Chambers, Mumbai – 400 020. 208 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaace0860H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…is received by the A.O. should be an external information for reopening of concluded assessments u/s 147/1148 ITA 6965/Mum/2013 17 of the Act .The ld. DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Company v. CIT (1976)102 ITR 287(SC). The Ld DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited (2007) 161 Taxman 316(SC) . It was submitted by ld DR that the information could be received from the Revenue audit party where merely information as to the escapement of income is provided by the audit party and he…

Chennai Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 720/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M.N. Maurya, IRS, CIT
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 619(3)(b)

…assessment as a change of opinion, but in original assessment replacement of compound wall was not discussed and there is no change of opinion. The ld. Assessing Officer relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Company vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 and other various High Courts decisions i.e. (i) High Court of Mumbai in the case of Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT 30 taxman. Com 211 (2013) (ii) Gujarat High Court in the case of Praful Chunilal Patel and Vasanth Chunilal Patel vs. ACIT 236 ITR 832 (iii) High Court of Delhi in the case of Honda Siel Power Pr…

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)

…ssessment. In support of this contention, he relied on the following decisions: 1) Ess Ess Kay Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT [2002] 124 taxmann.com 491 (SC) 2) Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd. Vs ITO [1999] 236 taxmann.com 34 (SC) 3) Kalyanji Mayji & Co. Vs CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) 4) Rinku Chakraborthy Vs CIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com 609 (Kar.) 5) B S Shantharaju Vs CIT [2014] 48 taxmann.com 375 (Kar.) 6) CIT Vs Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd. [2010] 191 taxmann 333 (Ker.) 7) CIT Vs MAA Communication Bozell Ltd. [2014] 43 taxmann.com 160 (Kar.) 8) Powerdeal Energy Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asst. CIT [2015] 127 taxmann.…

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

…ndian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 439 (Bom) (para 17) 3i Infotech Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2010] 329 ITR 257 (Bom) (para 26) International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (U. K.) Ltd. [2001] 5 SCC 265 (para 30) Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) (paras 9, 33, 34, 35) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Asst. Director of I. T. [2007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi) (para 12) Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 245 ITR 360 (SC) (para 31) Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC) (para 34) Muthukrishna Reddiar v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 503 (Ker) (para 9) New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR…

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

…e that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment, which fully justified the reopening of assessment under section 147 read with section 148. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co. –vs.- CIT reported in 102 ITR 287, he contended that the tax payer cannot take advantage of the mistakes committed by the authority. He, therefore, strongly relied on the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) upholding the validity of assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 and read out the reasons given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in para…

CIT vs. Usha International Ltd

ITA - 2026 / 2010HC Delhi23 Apr 2012
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 260ASection 45(1)

…disapproved or approved the observations of the Full Bench of Delhi High Court with reference to the said Section. The Supreme Court in Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society (supra) had examined their earlier decision in Kalyanji Mavji & Co. Vs. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 287 (SC) and observed as under:- “It appears to us, with respect, that the proposition is stated too widely and travels farther than the statute warrants in so far as it can be said to lay down that if, on reappraising the material considered by him during the original assessment, the ITO discovers that he has committed an error in consequen…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. K.C.P.Limited

ITTA/433/2011HC Telangana13 Mar 2012