“change of opinion”

Dy CIT CC 4(1), Mumbai vs. M/S R S Associates, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the assessee appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc – 4(1) Vs. M/S. R.S. Associates Room No. 1918, Commerz, 3Rd Floor, 19Th Floor, Air India Business Park, Bldg, Nariman Point, Oberoi Gardens City, Mumbai – 400 021. Goregaon (E) Mumbai – 400063 Pan/Gir No. : Aaafr2426H Appellant .. Respondent M/S. R.S. Associates Vs. Dcit, Cc – 4(1) Commersz,3Rd Floor, Room No. 1918, Business Park, 19Th Floor, Air India Oberoi Gardens City, Bldg, Nariman Point, Goregaon (E) Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400063 Pan/Gir No. : Aaafr2426H Appellant .. Respondent Assesse By : Mr.Vijay Mehta.Ar Revenue By : Mr.T.Sankar.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Cross Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of

relying on the same set of material which was available with the A.O. in the original assessment proceedings and is a mere change of opinion. The Ld. AR restricted his submissions to the extent of validity of reassessment proceedings and substantiated the arguments/ submissions with the paper book and judicial

Strides Pharma Science Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. The DCIT 15(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

proceedings to disclose primary and material facts that are relevant for the purpose of assessment. c. The ld. AO is only trying to change his opinion on the very same set of facts which are already available before him. 3.2. In fact, in the reasons recorded, nowhere ... Kelvinator of India Ltd., reported in 320 ITR 561 wherein it was held that reassessment cannot be made on mere change of opinion and the ld. AO cannot be given a second innings to review the same set of facts in the guise of reopening. In view of the above

Metal Tube and Rolling Mills, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 24(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blemetal Tubes & Rolling Mills V. Income Tax Officer – 24(2)(5) 1St Floor, Metal Tube & Rolling Mills Mumbai Marol Maroshi Road, Marol Village Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400059 Pan: Aaefm9353N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Tralshawala & Shri D.B. Shah Department By : Shri T. Shankar

verification, nor for a fishing or a rowing enquiry. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah 406 ITR 326 (Guj) vi. The AO is not entitled, on change of opinion, to commence proceedings for reassessment. The reliance placed by the Sr. AR on the judgment of 3i Infotech has been displaced in Ananta Landmark

Hsbc Asset Management (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.1 raised by assessee is allowed and assessment order framed found to be without jurisdiction

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalhsbc Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Mercantile Bank Chamber, 16 Veer Nariman, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aabch0007N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-1(1)(2) Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Niraj Sheth, Ar Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 13.10.2017 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: The Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Distinct & Separate & Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. On The Facts & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 6, Mumbai [‘Cit(A)’] Erred In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Initiated After Four Years From The End Of Relevant Assessment Year, Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Made & The Appellant Had Disclosed Fully & Truly All Material Facts Necessary

have noted the said reasons and hereby submit our objections to them in the following paragraphs: I. Reasons reflect mere change of opinion: (a) We would like to state that, the reopening is based on same set of facts/ material available on record for the year under consideration. This ... clear that section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon mere change of opinion.” 6 (e) The aforesaid decision in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator has now been affirmed by the Supreme Court (320 ITR 561) with

M/S. Darshan Construction, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 21, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1793/Mum/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ M/S. Darshan Construction Pcit-21 Room No.364, 3Rd Floor, B-001, Siddhivinayak Vs. Darshan, Ground Floor, J.R. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Bricha Marg, Saatrasta, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400011. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfd1634M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Pramod Kumar Parida & Kiran Vadher Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.02.2019 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-21 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 2. “1. Order U/S 263 Is Bad-In-Law & May Be Vacated: (I) The Id. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S. 263 Without Appreciating That The Original Scrutiny Assessment Order Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue As The Assessing Officer Had Passed The Same After Due Application Of Mind On The Basis Of Entire Materials Submitted Before Him; Therefore, The Impugned Order U/S. 263 Passed

view which is bad-in-law; hence, the same may be quashed. (ii) Without prejudice to above, assuming jurisdiction on the basis of change of opinion or on two views is not justified for making roving or fishing enquiry and to thrust another view; hence, the impugned Order

Nayan Arvind Lalan, Mumbai vs. ITO, 24(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

reopened within the purview of income Tax Act and there is reason to believe that income has escaped assessment & not due to change of opinion for reopening assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case laws quoted are not fitting into the four corners of assesses case

Nayan Arvind Lalan, Mumbai vs. ITO, 24(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

reopened within the purview of income Tax Act and there is reason to believe that income has escaped assessment & not due to change of opinion for reopening assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case laws quoted are not fitting into the four corners of assesses case

Nayan Arvind Lalan, Mumbai vs. ITO, 24(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

reopened within the purview of income Tax Act and there is reason to believe that income has escaped assessment & not due to change of opinion for reopening assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case laws quoted are not fitting into the four corners of assesses case

Nayan Arvind Lalan, Mumbai vs. ITO, 24(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

reopened within the purview of income Tax Act and there is reason to believe that income has escaped assessment & not due to change of opinion for reopening assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case laws quoted are not fitting into the four corners of assesses case

Nayan Arvind Lalan, Mumbai vs. ITO, 24(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

reopened within the purview of income Tax Act and there is reason to believe that income has escaped assessment & not due to change of opinion for reopening assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case laws quoted are not fitting into the four corners of assesses case

Areen Consultants P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 10(3), Mumbai

aside on the issue of jurisdiction as well on merits. He submitted that the reassessment proceedings have been initiated on account of mere change of opinion and without having any tangible material. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant took us through the documents forming part of paper book including ... Assessing Officer. The reasons recorded do not refer to any tangible material. The reassessment proceedings have been initiated on account of change of opinion which is not permissible as per the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India

The Tata Power Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

learned Pr. CIT has erred in law and in facts by initiating proceedings u/s 263 of the Act on a mere change of opinion and subsequently passing the Order u/s 263 of the Act without considering the fact that the Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C

Merck Performance Materials Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1210/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Merck Performance Materials बिधम/ The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Commissioner Of Income Vs. Chemtreat Composites India Tax – 15(2)(2), Mumbai, Pvt. Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Godrej One, Pirojsha Nagar, M.K. Road, Eastern Express Highway, Mumbai - 400020 Vikhroli (East), Mumbai- 400079 Pan : Aabcc5609B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी) / Respondent) For The Appellant/Assessee: Arati Vissanji For The Respondent/Revenue: C.T. Mathews सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary: 1. By Way Of The Present Appeal The Appellant/Assessee Has Challenged The Order Dated, 02.12.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 24, Mumbai (Hereafter Referred To As „The Cit(A)‟] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter Referred To As „The Act‟), Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Had Dismissed The Appeal Against The Assessment Order, Dated 29.12.2017, Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Act.

after the expiry of 4 years from the end of relevant Assessment Year without there being any tangible material, merely on account of change of opinion based upon ITA. No. 1210/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 Revenue Audit Objection. She further submitted that there was no failure on the part ... this belief is the legal interpretation adopted by the Audit Party. Accordingly, the belief formed by the Assessing Officer is nothing but a change of opinion of the Assessing Officer on re-examination of the same material/facts. In the present case there is no tangible material. Paragraph

ACIT -1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tilaknagar Idustries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for AY

assessment proceedings on the material already placed on record by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, the action of the AO amounts to change of opinion which is not permissible under law. In the case of CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held ... reopen u/s 1417 is much wider, however, the AO has not jurisdiction to reopen assessment on the basis of mere change of opinion. Power u/s 147 of the Act can be exercised by the AO provided there is tangible material to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income