“change of opinion”

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

occasion for calling the details and forming any opinion and thus the reassessment proceedings cannot be said to be based upon the change of opinion.  intimation under section 143 (1) cannot be treated to be an order of assessment as decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ... thus no scrutiny assessment was carried out, therefore, the impugned reassessment proceedings cannot be questioned on the ground of ‘change of opinion’ by the Assessing Officer. However, non- selection of the case for scrutiny does not in any manner belittle / reduce the significance and meaning of the term ‘reason

Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Additional Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Range-II(Now Assessed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

occasion for calling the details and forming any opinion and thus the reassessment proceedings cannot be said to be based upon the change of opinion.  intimation under section 143 (1) cannot be treated to be an order of assessment as decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ... thus no scrutiny assessment was carried out, therefore, the impugned reassessment proceedings cannot be questioned on the ground of ‘change of opinion’ by the Assessing Officer. However, non- selection of the case for scrutiny does not in any manner belittle / reduce the significance and meaning of the term ‘reason

Hitesh Chhatwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC -5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while for the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

11 Appeals Shri Hitesh Chhatwal Vs. DCIT, CC-5(4) 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

ACIT - 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. (No Merged With Hdfc Bank Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

scrutiny assessment and so the impugned action of AO to re-open on the very same issue is nothing but “change of opinion” which is akin to review of earlier AO’s action by the present AO, which he cannot do, because power to 3 A.Y. 2002-03 M/s. Lord ... opened by the present AO on the very same issue, therefore he held the action of the AO to reopen as mere “change of opinion” and therefore relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) quashed the reopening

Drums Food International P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -6, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmandrums Food Vs. Pcit – 6 International Pvt Ltd Room No. 501, 5Th Unit No. 912, 9Th Floor Floor, Aayakar Hubtown Solaris, N.S Bhavan, Mk Road, Phadke Marg, Andheri Mumbai – 400020. (E), Mumbai – 400 069. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccd7235M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Surendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-6, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Mumbai as same is passed after making necessary enquiries and after application of /mind and the order of Revision is nothing but change of opinion. During the course of assessment proceedings, Ld AO had asked specific query with respect to huge share premium. Assessee addressed the said issue by filing ... viib) are anti- abuse provisions and same may be invoked only if there is evasion of taxes. Hence, revision tantamount to change of opinion which is not permissible u/s 263. 4. Without prejudice to above as there is no loss to the revenue, since the valuation is as per Rule

Upal Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the asses

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Upal Developers Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of Market City Resources Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-8, Second Floor, R.R. Hosiery Bldg. Vs. Mumbai. Shree Laxmi Woolen Mills Estate, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacu 7953 K Appellant Respondent

Bombay High Court holding that reasons recorded by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court holding that reasons recorded were based on mere change of opinion. Sim were based on mere change of opinion. Similarly, in assessment year in assessment year 2013-14 also reopening was 14 also reopening was quashed ... reopening of the assessment on the same material was based on reopening of the assessment on the same material was based on change of opinion. In In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in of the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial

Bombay Real Estate Development Co. P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-1(1)-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings in the present case and thus reopening of assessment is bad in law as the same is based upon the change of opinion of the Assessing Officer. 10. On the other hand, Shri C.T. Mathews, learned Departmental Representative vehemently relied upon the orders passed by the lower authorities ... required to have „reason to believe‟ that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In present case, reassessment proceedings are nothing but mere change of opinion by Assessing Officer with regards to material already available on record and considered during the course of original scrutiny assessment proceedings. That

Radiant Life Care Mumbai P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aagcr 9198 D Appellant Respondent

assessee. In such circumstances, we can’t say that he has made any opinion or taken a particular view. Thus, no issue of change of opinion is involved in the case before us. 7.25 In view of the above facts and circumstances and discussion we are of the opinion that

Radiant Life Care Mumbai P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aagcr 9198 D Appellant Respondent

assessee. In such circumstances, we can’t say that he has made any opinion or taken a particular view. Thus, no issue of change of opinion is involved in the case before us. 7.25 In view of the above facts and circumstances and discussion we are of the opinion that

Rrc International Freight Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4758/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Rrc International बिधम/ Acit Circle-1(3)(1) Freight Services Ltd. 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Great Social Building, 2Nd Bhavan, M. K. Road, Floor, 60, Sir P.M. Road Mumbai-400020. Fort, Mumbai-400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr3533J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri M. P. Ahuja (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-03, Mumbai Dated 19.04.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. None- Appeared For The Assessee Despite Notices Being Served Upon It & The Mater Being Listed Nineteens (19) Times Before & The Matter Is Pending From 2017 Onwards & No Adjournment Application Has Been Brought To Our Notice, So We Are Inclined To Decide The Appeal Ex-Parte Qua Assessee. 3. The First Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Upholding The Reopening Of The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Holding It As Valid In Law Thereby Dismissing The Legal Issue Raised By Assessee Challenging Its Validity.

Rumeet Enterprises. The main contention of the assessee in respect of the legal issue is that second reopening was the result of change of opinion. However to examine the same, we need to look into the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment [first time] which culminated in passing ... which AO has based his reason to believe escapement of income. In order to appreciate the legal issue in the correct perspective [change of opinion] in the given facts of this case, it is difficult. That is mainly due to absence of the first reasons recorded to reopen the assessment

Tata Communications Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.1014/Mum/2015 Tata Communication Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, (Formerly Videsh Income Tax-1(3) Sanchar Nigan Limited) Aayakar Bhavan, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv2808C Appellant .. Respondent

same was also put to use during that year. The ld. Counsel contended that the A.O has reopened the case on change of opinion as the full facts of the matter detailed information were furnished during the course of assessment for A.Y. year 2003-04. The ld. Counsel also submitted ... goodwill in original assessment proceedings and A.O after considering same, allowed said claim, initiation of reassessment to disallow depreciation was nothing but change of opinion. With the assistance of the ld. Representative we have also gone through the copy of reason recorded for issuing notice

Tata Communications Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.1014/Mum/2015 Tata Communication Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, (Formerly Videsh Income Tax-1(3) Sanchar Nigan Limited) Aayakar Bhavan, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv2808C Appellant .. Respondent

same was also put to use during that year. The ld. Counsel contended that the A.O has reopened the case on change of opinion as the full facts of the matter detailed information were furnished during the course of assessment for A.Y. year 2003-04. The ld. Counsel also submitted ... goodwill in original assessment proceedings and A.O after considering same, allowed said claim, initiation of reassessment to disallow depreciation was nothing but change of opinion. With the assistance of the ld. Representative we have also gone through the copy of reason recorded for issuing notice

Tata Communicatiosn Ltd ( Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.1014/Mum/2015 Tata Communication Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, (Formerly Videsh Income Tax-1(3) Sanchar Nigan Limited) Aayakar Bhavan, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv2808C Appellant .. Respondent

same was also put to use during that year. The ld. Counsel contended that the A.O has reopened the case on change of opinion as the full facts of the matter detailed information were furnished during the course of assessment for A.Y. year 2003-04. The ld. Counsel also submitted ... goodwill in original assessment proceedings and A.O after considering same, allowed said claim, initiation of reassessment to disallow depreciation was nothing but change of opinion. With the assistance of the ld. Representative we have also gone through the copy of reason recorded for issuing notice

M/S. Gold Star Fine Jewellery LLP, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

dated 22.12.2018 on the ground that the said order is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue whereas it was a change in opinion rendering the order bad in law. 2. The Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in law, facts and circumstances of the case by treating ... submission was made on 17.12.2018 thereby rendering the notice and the subsequent order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 merely a change of opinion and bad in law. 3. The Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in law, facts and circumstances of the case by treating

ACIT 4 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Securities Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

further submitted that the re-assessment proceedings have been initiated for merely re-examination on account of change of opinion without any fresh material. In the order rejecting objections, the AO has failed to controvert the objections of the Assessee in this regard. The Assessee placed reliance on the following ... examined by the AO during the assessment proceedings, the contention of the Assessee that the reassessment proceedings have been initiated on account of change of opinion is liable to be rejected. Ld. Department Representative submitted that mere production of documents/information is not sufficient to constitute full disclosure and in this

Sunil Khanna, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 28(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that reopening of assessment in the present case is bad in law as same is based upon the change of opinion of the Assessing Officer. The learned AR further submitted that the information received from DGIT (investigation) was already available with the Assessing Officer ... required to have „reason to believe‟ that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In present case, reassessment proceedings are nothing but mere change of opinion by Assessing Officer Sunil H. Khanna ITA Nos. 3415/Mum./2019 and 3868/Mum./2019 with regards to material already available on record and considered during