← All Phrases

“change of opinion”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 1472,292 judgments

The decision most relied on for change of opinion is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on change of opinion

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar
268 ITR 332 · 2004 · High Court
695
citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, by issuing a notice under Section 148, must be judged solely on the reasons originally recorded by the Assessing Officer. These recorded reasons cannot be supplemented, improved upon, or modified at any later stage.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
256 ITR 1 · 2002 · High Court
439
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment under Section 147 based on a mere change of opinion regarding the same material available during the original assessment. Reopening requires fresh, tangible material or information that leads to a reason to believe income has escaped assessment.

T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros.
82 ITR 50 · 1971 · Supreme Court
382
citing judgments

A mistake apparent from the record under Section 154 must be an obvious and patent error, not one that requires a long and elaborate process of reasoning or where two opinions are conceivable. Rectification under Section 154 is not permissible for re-examining issues already considered or requiring detailed re-computation.

CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd.
354 ITR 536 · 2013 · High Court
366
citing judgments

Reassessment of income, especially after a summary assessment under Section 143(1), requires the Assessing Officer to possess fresh, tangible material to form a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment; a mere reappraisal of existing records or a change of opinion without new material is not permissible.

CIT v. Foramer France
264 ITR 566 · 2003 · Supreme Court
253
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year are invalid unless the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Without such failure, the notice issued under Section 148 is time-barred and without jurisdiction.

Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT
308 ITR 38 · 2009 · High Court
248
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if the reasons recorded for initiating action under section 148 are not served on the assessee within the limitation period prescribed by section 149. Furthermore, reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion without tangible material, particularly when the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of material facts.

CIT v. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd.
325 ITR 285 · 2010 · High Court
243
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid and void ab initio if initiated based on 'borrowed satisfaction' without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind, or merely on documents already available on record without fresh tangible material.

Judgments citing change of opinion

Sourabh Sharma, Indore vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi, Delhi

The appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 342/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 253

assessee the Ld. AO has completed assessment on the returned income of Rs.2,62,890/-, thus the re-opening of assessment is mere change of opinion. 2.2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO eared in issuing notice u/s 148A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bellary vs. M/S Virgo Properties Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1181/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

same materials which were available with the AO to pass Order under section 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act and it is complete change of opinion without any tangible materials and also accepted additional documents and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, Revenue ... Panaji wherein the CIT(A) allowed the appeal in respect of LTCG holding that the reassessment proceedings was initiated based on mere change of opinion without bringing any tangible material. "In view of the above, I am of the considerate opinion that it is a settled position that reassessment under

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

Year Objection No

ITA 2834/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Faroog IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated merely on account of ‘change of opinion’. In the aforesaid case, the following issue had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court: “2. A short question which arises for determination in this batch ... civil appeals is, whether the concept of "change of opinion" stands obliterated with effect from 1-4- 1989, i.e., after substitution of section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 by Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 19872” Answering the question in favour of the assessee, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2830/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated merely on account of ‘change of opinion’. In the aforesaid case, the following issue had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court: “2. A short question which arises for determination in this batch ... civil appeals is, whether the concept of "change of opinion" stands obliterated with effect from 1-4- 1989, i.e., after substitution of section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 by Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987?” 38. Answering the question in favour of the assessee, the Hon’ble Supreme

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2823/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated merely on account of ‘change of opinion’. In the aforesaid case, the following issue had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court: “2. A short question which arises for determination in this batch ... civil appeals is, whether the concept of "change of opinion" stands obliterated with effect from 1-4- 1989, i.e., after substitution of section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 by Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987?” 38. Answering the question in favour of the assessee, the Hon’ble Supreme

The New India Assurance Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2622/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated merely on account of ‘change of opinion’. In the aforesaid case, the following issue had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court: “2. A short question which arises for determination in this batch ... civil appeals is, whether the concept of "change of opinion" stands obliterated with effect from 1-4- 1989, i.e., after substitution of section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 by Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987?” 38. Answering the question in favour of the assessee, the Hon’ble Supreme

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

Year Objection No

ITA 2620/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Faroog IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated merely on account of ‘change of opinion’. In the aforesaid case, the following issue had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court: “2. A short question which arises for determination in this batch ... civil appeals is, whether the concept of "change of opinion" stands obliterated with effect from 1-4- 1989, i.e., after substitution of section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 by Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 19872” Answering the question in favour of the assessee, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2618/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated merely on account of ‘change of opinion’. In the aforesaid case, the following issue had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court: “2. A short question which arises for determination in this batch ... civil appeals is, whether the concept of "change of opinion" stands obliterated with effect from 1-4- 1989, i.e., after substitution of section 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961 by Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987?” 38. Answering the question in favour of the assessee, the Hon’ble Supreme

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2616/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated merely on account of ‘change of opinion’. In the aforesaid case, the following issue had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court: “2. A short question which arises for determination in this batch ... civil appeals is, whether the concept of "change of opinion" stands obliterated with effect from 1-4- 1989, i.e., after substitution of section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 by Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987?” 38. Answering the question in favour of the assessee, the Hon’ble Supreme

DCIT, Circle- 19(1), Delhi vs. Rakshit Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 4727/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Circle 19 (1), Vs. Rakshit Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., C – 1/207, 2Nd Floor, Delhi. Sector 11, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. (Pan : Aaecr2414E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-23 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 14.08.2024 For Ay 2017-18. “(I) "Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A), Has Erred In Not Appreciating That Detailed Investigation Was Already Carried Out By The Investigation Wing On The Issue Of Bogus Short Term Capital Loss From Alankit Group & The Assessee Was Not Able To Substantiate Its Claim With Evidences."

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151

circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the instant reassessment proceedings so initiated are with non application of mind, based on change of opinion and also without satisfying the statutory preconditions of provisions of section 147/ 148 of the Act. That further, the instant proceedings are also barred

Vision & Vision Private Limited, Jamshedpur vs. Acut/ DCIT Circle 1, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 183/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.183/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vision & Vision Pvt. Ltd.…….……………............................……….……Appellant Block No.2, Ambika Tower, Main Road Shastri Nagar, Jamshedpur – 831005. [Pan: Aabcv5072B] Vs. Acit/Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur ..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 19, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit), Ranchi, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 31.03.2025 For A.Y. 2018–19. The Assessee Challenges The Legality & Validity Of The Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Pcit & The Consequent Revision Of The Reassessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Dated 27.03.2023. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For A.Y. 2018–19 Declaring Total Income Of ₹11,95,030. The Return Was Initially Processed U/S 143(1). Later, Based On Information Shared By The Ddit (Investigation), Kolkata, It Was Alleged That The Assessee Had Received An Accommodation Entry Of ₹1,18,61,425 From M/S Kuldeepak Enterprises During The Year. On This Basis, The Ao Reopened The

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

jurisdiction to revise the order. That the Ld. PCIT merely substituted his opinion for that of the AO which amounts to impermissible “change of opinion”. As the alleged transaction pertains to earlier assessment year and income there from has already been taxed thus the issue is revenue neutral. That when ... thoroughly examined the issue and accepted the explanation, the Ld. PCIT’s direction to re- examine the same issue amounts to mere change of opinion, which is not permissible u/s 263 of the Act. From the discussion in forgoing paragraph, we find that the AO conducted adequate and proper inquiry

Ashok Rudraraju, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 439/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 439/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ashok Rudraraju, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aqvpr4058L

For Appellant: Shri I. Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151ASection 251(1)(a)Section 69A

escaped assessment, (3) no enquiry being conducted by the assessing officer prior to the issuance of notice; and reopening is based on change of opinion of the assessing officer and (4) lastly the mandatory procedure laid down by this Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income

Kineta Global Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 800/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.800/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Kineta Global Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Pan: Aacck7944A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri S. Venkateswarlu, Tax Consultant रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 03/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 21/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Company

For Appellant: Sri S. VenkateswarluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250(6)

escaped assessment, (3) no enquiry being conducted by the assessing officer prior to the issuance of notice; and reopening is based on change of opinion of the assessing officer and (4) lastly the mandatory procedure laid down by this Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income

Ramasamy Kandasamy, Karur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2023/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2023/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. Ramasamy Kandasamy, The Ito, No.4/76, Sf No.927, Sukkaliyur, Ward-1, Karur-639 003. Karur. [Pan: Ajgpk 4945 H]

For Appellant: Mr.H. Yeshwanth KumarFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151

taken the appellant's case for A.Y. 2012-13 under scrutiny. After 6 years, reopening of the case tantamount to change of opinion. The appellant has referred the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v Atul Kumar Swami ... carry much strength. Ramasamy Kandasamy :: 5 :: 4.7. Regarding, the contention of the appellant that the reason for reopening of the case tantamount to change of opinion, it is a matter of fact that no regular assessment was completed in the case of the appellant for A.Y. 2012-13. As discussed

Satbir Sagwal, Karnal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Karnal

ITA 1617/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Satbir, Sagwal C/O Tej Mohan Vs Income Tax, Officer Singh H.No.527, Sector 10D Ward-4 Karnal Haryana Chandigarh 160011 Pan No. Bdops3759N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69

vide order dated 25.02.2014 and thereafter again under section 143(3) read with section 263 vide order dated 15.12.2016 which is only a change of opinion and as such upholding of the assessment passed u/s 147 is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 4. That Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... Explanation 1 of section 147 of the Act are applicable in this case. Therefore, this case is not being a case of change of opinion by the AO. Therefore, notice u/s 148 of the Act is required to be issued to assess the escaped income of Rs.78

DCIT, Chennai vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, Chennai

ITA 1271/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1St Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Abfps-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld.Cit(A), Chennai, In Respect Of The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2019 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(3) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Assessment Year) U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act). :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी वर्की, न्यायिक

DCIT, Chennai vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, Chennai

ITA 1264/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1St Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Abfps-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld.Cit(A), Chennai, In Respect Of The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2019 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(3) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Assessment Year) U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act). :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी वर्की, न्यायिक

DCIT, Chennai vs. Jagathrakskan Srinisha, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 1253/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1St Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Abfps-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld.Cit(A), Chennai, In Respect Of The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2019 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(3) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Assessment Year) U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act). :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

circumstances, he applied the ratio of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. (supra) to rectify its earlier order. The instant case involved change of opinion. In this connection, it must be noted that the Government grants different types of subsidies to the entrepreneurs. The subsidy in Sahney Steel & Press Works ... Commissioner had taken the view that the subsidy in question was a revenue receipt. Therefore, the instant case was a classic illustration of change of opinion. [Para 7] The decision on debatable point of law cannot be treated as 'mistake apparent from record'. [Para 11] Accordingly, the appeal

Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2780/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarbharat Serums & V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Vaccines Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 15(1)(2), 3Rd Floor, Liberty Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – Airoli, Navi Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra 400708, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacb2431M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Mundra,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (Sr.DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.” 9. In the case under consideration, the proposed revision is sought to be done merely on change of opinion disagreeing with the opinion of the AO that the expenditure is not deductible under sec 80G of the Act. Further, it is a settled

Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja, Khakhadabela, Paddhari vs. ITO WD 2(1)(4), RKT, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed, to the extent indicated above

ITA 459/RJT/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.459/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja Vs. Ito Ward 2 (1) (4), Khakhadabela, Paddhari, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Rajkot - 360110 Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agvpj2529E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ; Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 26/07/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 25/11/2009 U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. That The Reasons Recorded U/S 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 By The Ld. A.O. Were Merely Based On The Suspicion & Without Any Tangible Material So As To Suggest Any Escapement Of Income. Hence The Reassessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Quashed Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

belief. This is supported by Circular No.549 dated 31.10.1989 which clarified that the words "reason to believe" did not mean a change of opinion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITO vs Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976 1103 ITR 437 has lucidly explained the power of assessing officer to bring