“change of opinion”

Sanjay Hirachand Chokad, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 32(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

erred in passing the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 by reopening the assessment for a second time u/s 148 by mere change of opinion which is bad in law as per the judgement of SC in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd (320 ITR 561 SC) even though ... reassessment on the basis of material which was considered during the original assessment cannot be made as it amounts to mere a change of opinion. The A.O has disposed off the objection raised by the assesse by written communication elaborated at Page 5 to 6 of the assessment order

Dy CIT-CC-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 797/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2012-13 ) आअसं. 798/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2011-12 ) आअसं. 799/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 6(3), Room No.1926, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Limited, Marathon Futurex Mafatlal Mill Compound, N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. Pan: Aaacp-8032-E ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.P. Bairagra With Ms. Rupa Nanda ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri C.T. Mathews सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-54, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’], For The 2

assessment for assessment year 2010-11 has been reopened beyond the period of four years on the basis of ‘audit objection’ and ‘change of opinion’. There is no fresh incriminating material for reopening the assessment. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that since, reopening is beyond a period ... third argument of ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee assailing reopening of assessment is that reopening of assessment is result of change of opinion. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that no new material came to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer after scrutiny assessment

Dy CIT, CC-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 797/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2012-13 ) आअसं. 798/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2011-12 ) आअसं. 799/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 6(3), Room No.1926, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Limited, Marathon Futurex Mafatlal Mill Compound, N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. Pan: Aaacp-8032-E ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.P. Bairagra With Ms. Rupa Nanda ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri C.T. Mathews सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-54, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’], For The 2

assessment for assessment year 2010-11 has been reopened beyond the period of four years on the basis of ‘audit objection’ and ‘change of opinion’. There is no fresh incriminating material for reopening the assessment. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that since, reopening is beyond a period ... third argument of ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee assailing reopening of assessment is that reopening of assessment is result of change of opinion. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that no new material came to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer after scrutiny assessment

M/S. Satyam Realtors P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(4)Dy CIT CC-5(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

ld.CIT(A) is set aside and held to be not tenable in law. Hence, I hold that reopening y the AO by change of opinion in this case is not sustainable in law. 7. As regards the merits of the case, it is seen that AO has attributed

The United Western Bank Ltd. (Through Successors Idbi Bank Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Satara

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

assessee is in appeal before us. 036. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that reopening of the assessment has been made on mere change of opinion and in absence of any tangible material. He submitted that assessment records for Assessment Year 2001-02 was the only basis for reopening ... assessee. He also submitted that note No. 5 to the notes on financial statements clearly shows the above transaction. Therefore, it is mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer and reopening is invalid. 037. On the merits of the case he submitted that the assessee has introduced employee stock

The United Western Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jalgaon

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

assessee is in appeal before us. 036. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that reopening of the assessment has been made on mere change of opinion and in absence of any tangible material. He submitted that assessment records for Assessment Year 2001-02 was the only basis for reopening ... assessee. He also submitted that note No. 5 to the notes on financial statements clearly shows the above transaction. Therefore, it is mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer and reopening is invalid. 037. On the merits of the case he submitted that the assessee has introduced employee stock

The United Western Bank Ltd., Satara vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Satara

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

assessee is in appeal before us. 036. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that reopening of the assessment has been made on mere change of opinion and in absence of any tangible material. He submitted that assessment records for Assessment Year 2001-02 was the only basis for reopening ... assessee. He also submitted that note No. 5 to the notes on financial statements clearly shows the above transaction. Therefore, it is mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer and reopening is invalid. 037. On the merits of the case he submitted that the assessee has introduced employee stock

Mamania Family Trust, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 41, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri A. M. Alankamony, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 308/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

Appeals) erred in not confirming the facts that re-assessment proceedings purely on the basis of Audit objection is change of opinion and hence reassessment proceedings u/s.115WH is to be quashed 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT (Appeals) erred ... benefit of privilege of employees will not be justifiable. The assessee also challenged the grounds of re-assessment on the ground of change of opinion based on audit objection and relied on various decisions. The assessee stated that since there was no scrutiny assessment u/s 115WE

Arch Impex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

22/2/2013 after proper application of mind on the issues involved, thus reopening in based on mere change of opinion on same set of facts which was duly disclosed in the assessment. 2. The reopening of assessment is based on audit objection dtd: 21.11.2013 which clearly reveals that reopening is based

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result we hold that the learned principal

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

reserve and has allowed deduction of special reserve at 514,43,59,610 – hence the reassessment on the said issue is on mere change of opinion on the same set of facts which is not permissible in law.” 035. On careful consideration of the ground raised before the learned

Mr Jasjeet Singh M Chaddah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21 (3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

Ld.AO erred in issuing the said notice u/s. 148 of the IT Act as the notice was issued merely due to a change of opinion and hence the said notice is null and void-ab-initio and is bad in law and all the proceedings and order passed ... observing as under :- The assessee has primarily contended that the issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act was on account of change of opinion between the AOs, as all the details, 3 Jasjeet Singh M. Chaddah documents, etc. were available to the AO while the original assessment

Bharat Diamond Bourse, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bharat Diamond Bourse, Dy. Cit (Exemption)-1, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaacb 2358 R Appellant Respondent

heads ‘profit and gains of the business’ and ‘income from other sources’, the action of the present CIT(exemption) amounts to merely change of opinion, which is not permitted in law. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi ... justified in revising the assessment order. He also contested the argument of the Ld. counsel of the assessee that there is change of opinion on the same set of facts. He submitted that Ld. CIT(E) while dropping the 263 proceedings vide order dated 16/03/2016, has not given any reasoning

DCIT, CC- 8(4), Mumbai vs. Ashok R. Ruia (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

this regards, it is submitted that the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D is nothing but the disallowance on the basis of change of opinion. 24 ITA NOs. 6309/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) M/s. Ashok R Ruia At this juncture we would like to submit that from the observation of the Assessment