“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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Ashok Jasraj Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3839/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

same was duly accepted after considering the explanations. Therefore, reopening the case once again u/s.148A is bad in law and the amounts to ‘change of opinion’. Alongwith the said objection assessee had filed all the details filed earlier during the course of assessment proceedings and in response to various queries

Godavari Multipurpose Articles Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee isallowed

ITA 1262/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

held that reassessment cannot be based on 6 I.T.A. No.1262/Kol/2024 Godavari Multipurpose Articles Pvt. Ltd. mere change of opinion or information received without verification. Similarly, on the issue of loan from M/s Elpro Traders Ltd. the assessee has sufficientlyexplained the transaction of supported by banking documents and ledger. Further

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Nitin Hire Purchase Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1526/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

allowed the appeal of the assessee on legal issue by giving finding in para 5.2.8 that the reopening of assessment was merely a change of opinion and hence bad in law, thereby allowing the appeal of the assessee on the legal issue. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ... issue raised in the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act is on the basis of some material which is noting but a change of opinion which is bad in law. The finding of Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order in para 5.2.8 is given as under

Idfc First Bank Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-1(1), Chennai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1171/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1170 & 1171/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 V. M/S. Idfc First Bank Ltd., The Pcit / Acit, [Earlier Known As Idfc Bank Ltd.], Corporate Cirlce-1(1), Krm Tower, 7Th Floor, No.1, Chennai. Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai. [Pan: Aadci 6523 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –

Section 147Section 148Section 263

basis of specific, credible and tangible information, having live nexus with the appellant company. Further. this is not a case of change of opinion as the original assessment order is silent on this aspect. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings by the AO under section 147 for bringing to tax income ... form reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and asserted that the proposed exercise of re-opening can be termed as mere ‘change of opinion’ and (ii) also pleaded that in the event, if the AO doesn’t accept the plea raised by it to drop the proceedings

Idfc First Bank Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT-1, Chennai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1170/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –

Section 147Section 148Section 263

Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward3(1), Chennai, Tamilnadu vs. Salcomp Manufacturing India (P) Ltd, Chennai, Tamilnadu

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1403/CHNY/2023[2009-10, 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1403/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 V. The Ito, M/S. Salcomp Manufacturing- Corporate Ward-3(1), India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. Nokia Telecom Sez, Sipcot Industrial Park- Phase-Iii, Sriperumbudur, Chennai-602 105. [Pan: Aajcs 7988 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Muralidhar, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

right in quashing the reopening proceeding by holding that AO did not have fresh materials for reopening the assessment. Hence there is change of opinion in this case? 3. Whether CIT (A) erred in not following the order of the follow the decision of Supreme Court in the case ... open the original assessment framed u/s.143(3) of the Act after four years from the end of the assessment year merely on “change of opinion”). 6. The brief facts are that the assessee company had furnished its return of income (RoI) for AY 2009-10 on 28.09.2009 and declared total

M/S. Rameshwar Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO -20(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1797/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChajjedFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred in passing the order under section 263 merely been change of opinion. The order under section 143(3) passed by the Ld. AO was not erroneous and neither prejudicial to the interest of revenue

Regalia Laminates, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 62(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 764/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Regalia Laminates Mcd Vs Income Tax Officer Buliding, Ist Floor Db Gupta Ward- 62 (5) Road Paharganj, New Delhi- New Delhi 110055 Pan No. Aaifr7691F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in upholding validity of reassessment proceedings, despite the same having been initiated on the basis of mere change of opinion, without any new tangible material/ information coming to the possession of the assessing officer subsequent to completion of assessment under section

De-Con Projects P Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-8(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee isallowed

ITA 775/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: passing original assessment order under Section 143(3), the same was examined by him and therefore, it is nothing but change of opinion and as such not in accordance with law.

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 151Section 250Section 69C

before passing original assessment order under Section 143(3), the same was examined by him and therefore, it is nothing but change of opinion and as such not in accordance with law. 5. For that the Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the reopening of the assessment when ... reassessment based on same material that was already available with the Assessing Officer during the original assessment year and reopening is nothing but change of opinion which is impermissible under the law. The Learned Authorised Representative argued that the reassessment proceedings initiated after 4 3 I.T.A. No.775/Kol/2024 De-Con Projects

Bhartiya Samruddhi Investments and Consulting Services Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 4(2), Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1637/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Yr. : 2012-13 Bhartiya Samruddhi Vs. Acit, Circle 4(2), Investments & Consulting New Delhi Services Limited, F-5, Ground Floor, Greater Kailash, Kailash Colony, Part-I, New Delhi – 110 048 (Pan: Aaacb5336R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 37

condition, available with the AO to allege the escapement of income, the reopening tantamount to only review of original assessment based on change of opinion which is not permissible u/s. 147/148. 2. Neither there is any fresh fact that came to the light which was not previously disclosed by assessee ... limit of 4 years is not based on any additional material that has come to the notice of AO and merely due to change of opinion. 5. The expenditure claimed by the assessee is as per the provision of the Act. The addition may be deleted. 2. Briefly stated facts

Amrutbhai Ichhabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 804/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 804/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) बनाम/ Shri Amrut Ichhabhai The Dy.Cit Patel Circle - 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Ketan H. Shah, Ahmedabad Advocate 512, Times Square-1, Opp. Ram Baug Bungalow, Thaltej Shilaj Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpp1706F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Ketan Shah & Shri Aman Shah, A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03/10/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Shah & Shri Aman ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

recorded any independent reason for escapement of income on the part of the assesse and that the reason was based on only change of opinion. He has drawn our attention to the reason as recorded by the AO, a copy of which has been brought on record and submitted that

Balasinor Vikas Co. Op. Credit Society Ltd., Mahisagar vs. The Pr. CIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

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

ITA 908/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 908/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम/ Balasinor Vikas Co.Op. The Principal Credit Society Ltd. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Rajpuri Darwaja, Opp. Tax Masjit, Balasinor - Vadodara-1, Baroda - 388255, Gujarat 390007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaab4748H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr : Date Of Hearing 02/09/2024 01/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pcit, Vadodara-1 (In Short ‘The Pcit’), Dated 22.03.2024 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income For A.Y. 2017-18 On 18.10.2017 Declaring Nil Income. The Original Assessment Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

said order and submitted that the AO had given a categorical finding that the case was reopened on change of opinion and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose any material facts. The AO had, therefore, dropped the reopening proceedings and accepted ... taken on this issue. Further, the same issue was already examined during the course of regular assessment and reopening on mere change of opinion is not in consonance with the decisions of jurisdictional high court and the Apex Court which are cited by assessee. The reason formed in violation

Thenmozhi Ganesan, Dindigul vs. PCIT, Madurai-1

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1628/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1628/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Thenmozhi Ganesan, The Principal Commissioner Of 13A, Collectorate, Vs. Income Tax, Indira Nagar, Madurai. Dindigul 624 004. Pan: Adtpt 8145C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Bhupendran, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai-1 [‘Pcit’ I Short] Dated 25.03.2024 For Assessment Years 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On 1-5 Grounds Which Are As Under: Ita No.1628 /Chny/2024 ‘’1) The Order Of The Learned Pcit Is Bad & Erroneous In Law. 2) The Learned Pcit Erred In Not Considering The Submission Filed By The Appellant In Proper Perspective. 3) The Learned Pcit Erred In Not Considering The Scope & Effect Of The Amendment Made In Section 40(A)(Ia) In Proper Perspective. 4) The Order By The Learned Pcit Directing The Assessing Officer To Pass A Fresh Assessment Order By Disallowing 100 Percent U/S. 40(A)(Ia), Without Cancelling The Earlier Assessment Order, As Mandated By Section 263 Is Bad In Law. 5) Invoking Section 263, When The Issue Of Disallowance U/S. 40(A)(Ia), At The Time Of Passing The Assessment Order Dated 10/03/2022 U/S.148, Was Not Free From Doubt, Is Not Legally Tenable’.

For Appellant: Shri. S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194CSection 263Section 40

keeping in mind the principle that if at all, there is any change in the above, it ITA No.1628 /Chny/2024 would amount to change of opinion, which, as you are aware, is outside the scope and ambit of sec.263. Thanking You Yours faithfully THENMOZHI GANESAN Encl. Copy of Judgements

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2892/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Small Industries Income Tax Circle- Development Bank Of 3(3)(1) India Room No. 609, Sme Development Centre, Aaykar Bhavan, C-11, G- Block, Vs. M. K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Churchgate, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400020. Pan: Aabcs3480N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule- CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

discover by the AO and could not have been discovered with due diligence. For the above reasons, it is not a case of change of opinion. Therefore, I am satisfied that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the assessment ... hence there was no tangible material to form a view that income has escaped the assessment. ii. It is a clear case of change of opinion. iii. The AO has no power to review, he has the power to reassess The assessee relied upon following case laws in support

Agamani Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 365/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.365/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Agamani Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant Vandana Auto Rmakund, G.E. Road, Chhattisgarh-492001. (Pan: Aagca6022P) Vs. Assessing Officer ………… Respondent National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. Appearances By: Shri Abhisek Bansal, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Addl. Cit Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 27.09.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 29.12.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

dated 28.01.2016 and the said transaction has also been examined in detail by the Ld. AO and, therefore, the reopening is based on change of opinion. He thus, submitted that the impugned addition is uncalled for. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the orders

Income Tax Office, Ward-6(2), Jaipur vs. Medical Designs India Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 236/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ratan Lal Goyal (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

based on suspicion, gossip, rumour or conjuncture. + Reasons referred must disclose the process of reasoning by which he holds ‘reasons to believe' and change of opinion does not confer jurisdiction to reassess. * There must be nexus between material and belief. * The reasons referred must show application of mind

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/S Man Prakash Talkies Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed,

ITA 407/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos.406 & 407/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-02, Jaipur cuke Vs. M/s Man Prakash Talkies Pvt Ltd. Near Yadgar, M. I. Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCM 6231 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. Nos.11 & 12/JP/2018 (Arising out of ITA Nos.406 & 407/JP/2018) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) &

Section 147

case and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in holding that reopening of the case u/s 148 is merely change of opinion, which is contrary to the facts as in quantum proceedings, AO has not formed any opinion on this issue, as the issue under consideration ... been treated as income from business and profession. (vii) It was the contention of the appellant that the reopening was based on the change of opinion. It is noted that in its computation of income, the appellant has shown long term capital gain

Deputy Commisisoner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/S. Man Praksh Talkies Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed,

ITA 406/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) &

Section 147

A.C.I.T, Wardha Circle, Wardha vs. M/S Kapil Solvex Pvt .Ltd, Yavatmal

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

ITA 221/NAG/2017[2009-20010]Status: Trans-OutITAT Pune26 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

investigation being pursuant to which notices were issued. The learned Counsel further submitted that the finding of the Tribunal that there was a change of opinion is perverse. The learned Counsel for the Respondent Assessee has drawn our attention to the Reasons, which have been reproduced in paragraph

Rukhmani Traders, Mumbai vs. ACIT 18 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 822/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Rukhmani Traders, Asst. Cit -18(3), 6Th Floor, A Wing, Aurus Chambers, Earnest House, Nariman Point, Vs. S.S. Amrutwar Marg, Behind Mumbai-400021. Mahindra Towers, Worli, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aalfr 1619 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Shreyash ShahFor Respondent: Mrs. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 151

reopening of the assessments for second time, based on the very same material based on the very same material, amounts to amounts to ‘change of opinion’ and ‘review review’ of the assessment by the AO, by the AO, which is not permitted under the law. The Ld. counsel referred ... reopening of the therefore, reopening of the assessment order on the sessment order on the basis of same information, is based on the ‘change of opinion’ and amounts to and amounts to ‘review’ of the assessment order the assessment order, which is not permitted under the provisions of section