← 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

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. N K Proteins Pvt. Limited, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 339/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri T R Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 43(5)

Thus, issuance of notice for alleged escapement of income by making re-computation of disallowance u/s 14A on same issue is certainly change of opinion on part of subsequent AO. Further, it important to note that before passing of the Assessment Order, 7 I.T.A No. 339/Ahd/2022 & CO 29/Ahd/2022 ... part of assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment and, therefore, reassessment proceedings initiated merely on basis of change of opinion deserved to be set aside - Held, yes [Paras 8 and 10] [In favour of assessee]" 4.13 Considering the above decisions, reassessment notice relating

Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 54/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)Section 80I

adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A). Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding that there is no change of opinion of Ld. AO and hence conditions under Section 147 of the Act are fulfilled. (Tax Effect – Nil) 2. On the facts and circumstances ... under Section 80IB of the Act. To permit the present proceedings for reassessment would be to permit the reopening proceedings on account of change of opinion. If re-assessment is allowed, on the basis of said change of opinion, it would amount to review which is not permissible under

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1867/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)Section 80I

adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A). Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding that there is no change of opinion of Ld. AO and hence conditions under Section 147 of the Act are fulfilled. (Tax Effect – Nil) 2. On the facts and circumstances ... under Section 80IB of the Act. To permit the present proceedings for reassessment would be to permit the reopening proceedings on account of change of opinion. If re-assessment is allowed, on the basis of said change of opinion, it would amount to review which is not permissible under

Shivam Readymix Private Limited, Neemuch vs. The PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 69C

proceedings. That action of the ld. PCIT to review the order of the ld. AO is not permissible because it is merely a change of opinion about the applicability of a particular provision or not, where the Assessing Officer has already raised the issue sought explanation of the assessee which

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 1437/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1437/Chny/2024 & Co No.: 46/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner M/S. Cholamandalam Ms Of Income Tax, V. General Insurance Company Non-Corporate Circle -8, Limited, Room No. 507, 5Th Floor, No.2, Dare House, Chenai Annexe Building, G.P.O., Parrys, No. 121, M.G. Road, Chennai - 600 001. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan:Aabcc-6633-K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Assessee By : Ms. Kamakshi, Advocate For Mr. Sandeepbagmar, Advocate Department By : Mr.Nilaybaransom, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Aredirected Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 07.03.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) In

For Appellant: Ms. Kamakshi, Advocate forFor Respondent: Mr.NilayBaranSom, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

facts as were available to the Learned AO at the time of original assessment and therebyacting against the well settled law that change of opinion cannot be a basis for reassessment proceedings. 4. The reassessment proceeding is invalid, as the same was initiated merely based on auditobjections. The Cross Objector ... limitation as per the first proviso to section 147 of the Act. Further, the Id.AR argued that reopening is on the basis of change of opinion which is impermissible by relying on the following judicial precedents. 8.4 Further, the Ld.AR submitted that: 1. it is a settled principle

Sanjjay Saumyha, Salem vs. Principal CIT, Coimbatore

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 392/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.392/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mrs. Sanjjay Saumyha Pcit बनाम/ 251 A, Omalur Main Road, Swarnapuri, Coimbatore-1. Vs. Salem-636 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeyps-0117-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. R. Mohan Reddy (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. R. Mohan Reddy (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 14Section 147Section 263Section 40

erroneous. 2.4 The learned Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax erred in assuming jurisdiction to revise the assessment order on the basis of change of opinion. 2.5 The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred in setting aside the assessment order dated 14 September 2021 passed by the Assessing Officer

ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. K.C.P.Shivaraman, Karur

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2183/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2183/Chny/2018 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Shri K.C.P. Shivaraman बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1), #330, Chinna Andan Koil Road, Vs. Chennai. Karur-639 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaxps-4844-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147

pleaded that there was no tangible material before Ld. AO for arriving at a belief of escapement of income. It was on mere change of opinion. The Ld. AR also submitted that there is no material with revenue to make impugned additions and the additions have been made on mere ... benefit by way of kick back. 4.3 The Ld. CIT(A) further held that reassessment was only a review attempt on a mere change of opinion. All the facts were known to Ld. AO in earlier proceedings. The said debt was subsequently discharged by the assessee and therefore, to allege

Nita Padamchand Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-24(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3122/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K(SMC)" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. M. GolvalaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Pardeshi
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

escaped assessment. 3. The Assessing Officer erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 147, as the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of change of opinion. 4. The Assessing officer erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s147, in the absence of tangible material. 5. The Assessing officer erred in assuming jurisdiction ... with the Assessing Officer to form belief that income had escaped assessment and that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on account of mere change of opinion. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, it was also contended that there was no live nexus or link between the formation of belief

Mr Dnyaneshwar Baburao Kathe, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Pune

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

ITA 432/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.432/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Dnyaneshwar Baburao Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Pune. Kathe, Janori Dhawa, 10Th Mail Road, Dindori, Nashik- 422206. Pan : Bbppk3199D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Krishna V. Gujarathi Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.01.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case & In Law The Honorable Cit(A) Has Erred & Is Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.31,58,740/- By Treating The Cash Deposits Made By The Assessee In The Saving Bank Account Of Dena Bank As Unexplained Income Without Appreciating The Fact That The Said Cash Deposited In The Bank Was Out Of Agriculture Sale Proceeds. The Appellant Prays That The Addition May Please Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Krishna V. GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 148Section 3Section 50CSection 54F

report, the Assessing Officer has reported the Fair Market Value of the sold property i.e. at Rs.56,65,000/- which is clear cut change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that once the assessing officer has opted full value of consideration as the sale value instead

Annadurai Balakrishnan, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Erode

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 499/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.499/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) Annadurai Balakrishnan Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5/95, Periathottam, Ward 2(5) Oricherry Pudur P.O., Erode Bhavani, Erode 638 315. [Pan: Anipa 8909M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. K. Karthikeyan, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. Karthikeyan, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 69

assessment was re-opened. 6. The learned NFAC erred in observing that the appellant had questioned the re-assessment on the ground of change of opinion but actually the appellant had challenged the re-assessment as it was based on "borrowed satisfaction". 7. The appellant submits that the assessing officer

DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Antony Motors P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee & revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 724/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhri[Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Antony Motors Pvt. Income-Tax- 15(1)(1) Ltd. Room No.517, A-390/391, 5Th Floor, Midc, Ttc, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Industrial Zone, Maharshi Karve Road, Navi Mumbai- 400701. Mumbai- 400020. Pan: Aaaca4719K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande – Sr. A.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148

Antony Motors Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 722- 724/M/2016 CO No. 150.-152/M/2017 proceedings, and therefore issuance of 148 notice amounts to ‗change of opinion‘. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd reported ... present facts of the case is not based on the fulfilment of the precondition stipulated under the section and that, it is mere ‗change of opinion‘ without there being any tangible material to come to such conclusion. 5.4. On the contrary the Ld.DR vehemently opposed the arguments of the Ld.AR

DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Antony Motors P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee & revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 723/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhri[Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Antony Motors Pvt. Income-Tax- 15(1)(1) Ltd. Room No.517, A-390/391, 5Th Floor, Midc, Ttc, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Industrial Zone, Maharshi Karve Road, Navi Mumbai- 400701. Mumbai- 400020. Pan: Aaaca4719K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande – Sr. A.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148

Antony Motors Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 722- 724/M/2016 CO No. 150.-152/M/2017 proceedings, and therefore issuance of 148 notice amounts to ‗change of opinion‘. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd reported ... present facts of the case is not based on the fulfilment of the precondition stipulated under the section and that, it is mere ‗change of opinion‘ without there being any tangible material to come to such conclusion. 5.4. On the contrary the Ld.DR vehemently opposed the arguments of the Ld.AR

DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Antony Motors P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee & revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 722/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhri[Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Antony Motors Pvt. Income-Tax- 15(1)(1) Ltd. Room No.517, A-390/391, 5Th Floor, Midc, Ttc, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Industrial Zone, Maharshi Karve Road, Navi Mumbai- 400701. Mumbai- 400020. Pan: Aaaca4719K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande – Sr. A.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148

Antony Motors Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 722- 724/M/2016 CO No. 150.-152/M/2017 proceedings, and therefore issuance of 148 notice amounts to ‗change of opinion‘. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd reported ... present facts of the case is not based on the fulfilment of the precondition stipulated under the section and that, it is mere ‗change of opinion‘ without there being any tangible material to come to such conclusion. 5.4. On the contrary the Ld.DR vehemently opposed the arguments of the Ld.AR

Ashok Kumar Singh, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward III(2), Ludhiana

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

ITA 126/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), The Assessee Has Sought Permission To Raise Following Additional Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 69A

order is against law and facts on the file in as much as the initiation of proceedings u/s 148 was on account of change of opinion and are, therefore, invalid.” 4. It was submitted that these grounds were purely legal grounds and the assessee had placed reliance on the decision

Subhash Kumar Kedia, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 707/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.707/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Kumar Kedia Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afvpk8915Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 405/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Shri Bikash Kumar Asstt. C. I. T. Kedia Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afapk8794E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vamshi Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Dated 31/01/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Page 1 Of 33

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Vamshi Krishna, DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

learned Counsel for the assessee that the reopening of the assessment was not based on any fresh tangible material but merely on change of opinion is devoid of any merit and unsustainable. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer

Bikash Kumar Kedia, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 405/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.707/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Kumar Kedia Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afvpk8915Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 405/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Shri Bikash Kumar Asstt. C. I. T. Kedia Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afapk8794E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vamshi Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Dated 31/01/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Page 1 Of 33

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Vamshi Krishna, DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

learned Counsel for the assessee that the reopening of the assessment was not based on any fresh tangible material but merely on change of opinion is devoid of any merit and unsustainable. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Capital First Limited(Merged With Idfc First Bank Limited), Chennai

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 1692/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1692/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & C.O. No. 63/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. No. 1692/Chny/2024] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Capital First Limited (Merged With Income Tax, Idfc Bank Limited), Kpm Tower, 7Th Floor, No. 1, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle 11, Chennai. Chetpet, Chennai 600 031. [Pan:Aacck6863C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit Assessee By : Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In The Revenue’S Appeal & The Cross Objections Of The Assessee Are Similar & Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Tribunal held that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is correct in holding that the case of the assessee which fall under “change of opinion”. The relevant portion in the order for AY 2008- 09 at para 8 and 9 are reproduced herein below for better understanding ... failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. 7. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Hdfc Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2716/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit – 1(1)(1) 597, Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai Maharashtra–400020……………. Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 144Section 250Section 28Section 44

view on the basis of the communication noted earlier, the act of reopening the assessment would have to be regarded as a mere change of opinion which has also not been based on any tangible material. Consequently, we hold that the reopening of the assessment is contrary

Amazon Web Services India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 2706/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumara.Yr. : 2018-19 Amazon Web Services India Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Delhi-1, Block-3, 14Th Floor, Unit Delhi Nos. 1401 To 1421, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New International Trade Delhi Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019 (Pan: Aajca9880A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Ms. DeepashreeFor Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

various issues was, in any case, a plausible view; and (c) revisionary proceedings under could not be initiated on a mere ‘change of opinion’. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT erred in alleging that the assessment order dated 27.10.2021, was erroneous

ACIT, Circle-46(1), New Delhi vs. Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas the appeals of the Revenue, having become infructuous, are dismissed

ITA 2452/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Before Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice & And & Shri M. Balaganesh Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Shri M. Balaganesh Shri M. Balaganesh Accountantmember Member

Section 147Section 14A

reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act merely to treat the option money as revenue receipt is nothing but pure change of opinion. Thus, in our view, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act in all these years is invalid. Accordingly, we quash the assessment