← 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

Brand India Real Estate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. In absence of this pre-condition, the reopening is mere change of opinion. 1. The assessment proceeding of the assessee for the year under consideration was originally completed u/s 143(3) of I. Tax Act, 1961 vide order ... assessment is based on re-appreciation of the material already available on record at the time of scrutiny assessment which amounts to mere change of opinion. Obviously, in the garb of purported exercise of the power to reassess, the AO cannot be permitted to review his own order

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S Trishul Developers, Bengaluru

ITA 767/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

company is not curable. On this ground alone, without adjudicating upon the other issues raised by the petitioner inasmuch as the limitation aspect, change of opinion, non-existence of tangible material and non-failure on the part of the assessee disclosing full and true material facts need not be examined

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Trishul Developers, Bangalore

ITA 766/BANG/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

company is not curable. On this ground alone, without adjudicating upon the other issues raised by the petitioner inasmuch as the limitation aspect, change of opinion, non-existence of tangible material and non-failure on the part of the assessee disclosing full and true material facts need not be examined

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Trishul Developers, Bangalore

ITA 764/BANG/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

company is not curable. On this ground alone, without adjudicating upon the other issues raised by the petitioner inasmuch as the limitation aspect, change of opinion, non-existence of tangible material and non-failure on the part of the assessee disclosing full and true material facts need not be examined

Ramamurthy Praveen Chandra, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

ITA 622/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Add. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

Order except the return filed by the assessee. Now further in 153C proceeding the AO has disallowed the same expenditure. This is complete change of opinion by the Income Tax Department which is not permitted once the AO has taken a view and accepted in the assessment proceedings subsequently ... initiation made by the AO under section 153C of the Act is not correct since it is not undisclosed income only it is change of opinion which is not permitted. The other grounds taken by the assessee are left open. 16. In the result, we have allowed grounds raised

Ramamurthy Praveen Chandra, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

ITA 621/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Add. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

Order except the return filed by the assessee. Now further in 153C proceeding the AO has disallowed the same expenditure. This is complete change of opinion by the Income Tax Department which is not permitted once the AO has taken a view and accepted in the assessment proceedings subsequently ... initiation made by the AO under section 153C of the Act is not correct since it is not undisclosed income only it is change of opinion which is not permitted. The other grounds taken by the assessee are left open. 16. In the result, we have allowed grounds raised

Ramamurthy Praveen Chandra, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

ITA 620/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Add. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

Order except the return filed by the assessee. Now further in 153C proceeding the AO has disallowed the same expenditure. This is complete change of opinion by the Income Tax Department which is not permitted once the AO has taken a view and accepted in the assessment proceedings subsequently ... initiation made by the AO under section 153C of the Act is not correct since it is not undisclosed income only it is change of opinion which is not permitted. The other grounds taken by the assessee are left open. 16. In the result, we have allowed grounds raised

Ramamurthy Praveen Chandra, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

ITA 619/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Add. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

Order except the return filed by the assessee. Now further in 153C proceeding the AO has disallowed the same expenditure. This is complete change of opinion by the Income Tax Department which is not permitted once the AO has taken a view and accepted in the assessment proceedings subsequently ... initiation made by the AO under section 153C of the Act is not correct since it is not undisclosed income only it is change of opinion which is not permitted. The other grounds taken by the assessee are left open. 16. In the result, we have allowed grounds raised

Siddharth Bhasker Shah, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax- 27, Mumbai ( Navi Mumbai)

ITA 2169/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, CA
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 48Section 54Section 54F

framed the assessment, the revision powers conferred on the Principal CIT under section 263 of Act, cannot invoked only based on a change of opinion. 2. The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax has erred in passing Order u/s.263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 27.03.2025, without appreciating the fact ... provisions of Section 54F was available to the Assessee and hence the directions of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax were on account of change of opinion. 4. The Appellant prays that, the Order u/s.263 of the Income-tax Act dated 27.03.2025 passed by Principal Commissioner of Income-tax be annulled

Nasa Agro Industries Private Limited, Fazilka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 236/ASR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Y. K. Sud & Sh. P. K. Anand, CAs
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153cSection 250

reassessment can be validly exercised if satisfaction is arrived at after following due procedure that income had escaped assessment. Such satisfaction may involve change of opinion but was not at par with 'mere change of opinion. If satisfaction is arrived at on the basis of any relevant material, such satisfaction

Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No. 9 to 14 is allowed

ITA 2639/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 254(1)Section 45(4)Section 48

aside and quashed. 6. On facts and in law, re-opening is merely based on change of opinion as Directors' report with Audited Financial Statements were considered by Ld. A.O. while passing regular assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act. Hence, merely assessment Order is silent

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Suncity Infrastructures Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4831/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwaldy. Cit, Suncity Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. Lgf-10, Vasant Square Mall, Vs. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaics7928N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Pawan Garg, Ca Department By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.08.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10115325 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S.144B Dated 29.03.2021 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Real State. The Return Of Income Of The Year Under Appeal Was Filed On 30.09.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,93,54,930/- & The Same Was Assessee U/S 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 24.11.2017 Wherein The Income Declared Was Accepted By The Ao. Thereafter, Based On The Information That The Assessee Has Dcit Vs. Suncity Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Allotted Preference Shares To One Shri Tarun Agarwal, At 16546/- Per Which Were Not Commensurate With The Financials Of The Company & After Obtaining The Approval Form The Competent Authority Notice Was Issued U/S 148 Dated 31.03.2021 Which Was Served Upon The Assessee On 01.04.2021. Thereafter, Reassessment Order Was Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Wherein Addition Of Rs.11,00,00,000/- Was Made On Account Of Share Premium Treated As Unexplained U/S 68 Of The Act R.W.S 115Bbe Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

what was very much available, the re-opening in such circumstance is impermissible and Assessment proceedings cannot be initiated on basis of mere change in opinion 8. Your Honor, in this regard it is pertinent to mention that the assessee has already been scrutinized under section ... returned income of Rs. 2,93,54,930/- vide order dated 24.11.2017. 10. Thus, the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 constitutes change of opinion which is not permissible under the law and therefore, the reopening of the assessment proceedings is invalid, illegal and without jurisdiction. The issue is covered

Lexus Softmac, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 703/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.702 & 703/Srt/2024 Ays: (2014-15 &2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Lexus Softmac, Deputy Commissioner Of F -3 To F-6, Gujarat Hira Bourse, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), बनाम/ Gems & Jewellery Park, Surat Room No.108, Vs. Ichchhapore, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat - 394510 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabfl 0495 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K Kapadia, C.A. राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

erred in law and on facts and in circumstances of the case by reopening the case on the basis of change of opinion. 3. Both the lower authorities have passed the order without appreciating the facts and they have further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions although the appellant ... quashed. The Ld. AR further contended that the AO has erred by reopening the case of the assessee on the basis of change of opinion. Ld. AR also stated that both the lower authorities had passed their assessment orders without appreciating the facts and they have further erred in grossly

Lexus Softmac, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 702/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.702 & 703/Srt/2024 Ays: (2014-15 &2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Lexus Softmac, Deputy Commissioner Of F -3 To F-6, Gujarat Hira Bourse, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), बनाम/ Gems & Jewellery Park, Surat Room No.108, Vs. Ichchhapore, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat - 394510 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabfl 0495 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K Kapadia, C.A. राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

erred in law and on facts and in circumstances of the case by reopening the case on the basis of change of opinion. 3. Both the lower authorities have passed the order without appreciating the facts and they have further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions although the appellant ... quashed. The Ld. AR further contended that the AO has erred by reopening the case of the assessee on the basis of change of opinion. Ld. AR also stated that both the lower authorities had passed their assessment orders without appreciating the facts and they have further erred in grossly

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam vs. Duvvuru Rekha Reddy, Kurmannapalem

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam -530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C] सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 17/Viz/2024 [आयकरअपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18)] Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam - 530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C]

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

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

Vashisht Alloys, Nahan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Yamuna Nagar

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1003/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar (CA) a/w Ms. DeepaliFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

facts before the department and Ld. AO had full opportunity to draw any inferences on those facts. Therefore, the reopening was on mere change of opinion which was based on material already placed on record. It was further contended that Ld. AO acted mechanically on the information so received form

Dr. Pratap Pandhiranath Patil, Pune vs. PCIT - 2, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 1026/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Iyer and Shri Siddhant G. BiswasFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

revenue merely because the PCIT holds a different opinion. Accordingly, revisionary order U/s 263 of the Income Tax Act based on mere change of opinion is unsustainable in law. 7. The Ld. PCIT overlooked the fact that the assessee had already filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against ... jurisdiction to revise the same matter. Furthermore, the Ld. PCIT erred in law by invoking Section 263 based on a mere change of opinion on the additions made by the Ld. AO, without demonstrating any error that is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, as required by law. Such

Avon Containners Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 5161/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

basis of incorrect or non-existent facts (two different figures in reasons i.e., Rs. 60,00,000/-and Rs.80,00,000/-) and "CHANGE OF OPINION" without appreciating the fact that assessee has already assessed before Id. A.O in assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. 6. That

Bajrang Steel & Alloys Private Limited, Sundargarh vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 553/CTK/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.553/Ctk/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Bajrang Steel & Alloys Private Vs Pcit, Sambalpur Limited Plot No:- 31, Kalunga, Near Kalunga High School, Sundergarh, 770031 Pan No. : Aaacm 2123 M (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Miss Sarmila Agarwal, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2025

For Appellant: Miss Sarmila Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 263Section 37(1)Section 69Section 69C

direct the AO to assess the said amount under section 69C of the Act, is nothing but a change of opinion, insofar as, he is proposing to impose his views over that of the AO. This is not permissible under the provisions u/s. 263 of the Act. The AO having

Sharada Electors Private Limited, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-3, Pune

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

ITA 1432/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

under the category of 'erroneous' and the view taken by the PCIT on such an instance cannot be termed to be a mere change of opinion. Thus, the reliance placed on the assessee on the above decisions and other similarly placed decisions is totally misplaced considering the facts