← 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

Sai Diamonds, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle - 19(3), Mumbai

ITA 3165/MUM/2023[20012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024

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

For Appellant: Ms. Mrugakshi K. JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Shreekala Pardeshi
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

position that the regular scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was not framed on the Appellant. Therefore, the question of change of opinion did not arise. The notice for initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act was issued to the Appellant on 25/03/2019, i.e. within

Vaaan Infra Private Limited, Haryana vs. Pr, CIT Delhi-7, Delhi

ITA 1102/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: PCIT, Delhi-9, however the order passed by Hon'ble PCIT, Delhi-7 on 30.03.2021.

Section 263Section 56(2)(vib)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 56(25)(viib)

submission on 18.06.2020 before Hon'ble PCIT, Delhi-9, however the order passed by Hon'ble PCIT, Delhi-7 on 30.03.2021. 4. Mere change of opinion without satisfying twin conditions can't give rise to revision under section 263 of the Act. 4.1 That the order passed under section ... PCIT did not agree, cannot form the basis for an action under section 263 of the Act. Hence, there is mere change of opinion, assessment is void ab initio. 4.3 That the twin condition (i)That the order passed by Learned AO is erroneous, and (ii)That it is prejudicial

Reserve Bank Staff and Officers Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3118/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. Siddesh Mayekar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

objection. 2.2. The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the validity of reopening of assessment even though the assessment was reopened due to change of opinion, ITA No. 3114 & Ors/Mum/2023 Reserve bank staff and officers co-op credit society ltd; A.Y. 13-14 & Ors without obtaining any fresh material ... partly allowed. 06. The assessee is aggrieved on the issue of reopening of the assessment holding that the assessment was reopened due to change of opinion and in absence of any tangible material it also challenges the approval granted by the learned Pr. CIT in mechanical manner and without application

Reserve Bank Staff and Officers Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3117/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. Siddesh Mayekar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

objection. 2.2. The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the validity of reopening of assessment even though the assessment was reopened due to change of opinion, ITA No. 3114 & Ors/Mum/2023 Reserve bank staff and officers co-op credit society ltd; A.Y. 13-14 & Ors without obtaining any fresh material ... partly allowed. 06. The assessee is aggrieved on the issue of reopening of the assessment holding that the assessment was reopened due to change of opinion and in absence of any tangible material it also challenges the approval granted by the learned Pr. CIT in mechanical manner and without application

Reserve Bank Staff and Officers Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3116/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. Siddesh Mayekar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

objection. 2.2. The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the validity of reopening of assessment even though the assessment was reopened due to change of opinion, ITA No. 3114 & Ors/Mum/2023 Reserve bank staff and officers co-op credit society ltd; A.Y. 13-14 & Ors without obtaining any fresh material ... partly allowed. 06. The assessee is aggrieved on the issue of reopening of the assessment holding that the assessment was reopened due to change of opinion and in absence of any tangible material it also challenges the approval granted by the learned Pr. CIT in mechanical manner and without application

Reserve Bank Staff and Officers Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3115/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. Siddesh Mayekar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

objection. 2.2. The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the validity of reopening of assessment even though the assessment was reopened due to change of opinion, ITA No. 3114 & Ors/Mum/2023 Reserve bank staff and officers co-op credit society ltd; A.Y. 13-14 & Ors without obtaining any fresh material ... partly allowed. 06. The assessee is aggrieved on the issue of reopening of the assessment holding that the assessment was reopened due to change of opinion and in absence of any tangible material it also challenges the approval granted by the learned Pr. CIT in mechanical manner and without application

Reserve Bank Staff and Officers Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3114/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. Siddesh Mayekar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

objection. 2.2. The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the validity of reopening of assessment even though the assessment was reopened due to change of opinion, ITA No. 3114 & Ors/Mum/2023 Reserve bank staff and officers co-op credit society ltd; A.Y. 13-14 & Ors without obtaining any fresh material ... partly allowed. 06. The assessee is aggrieved on the issue of reopening of the assessment holding that the assessment was reopened due to change of opinion and in absence of any tangible material it also challenges the approval granted by the learned Pr. CIT in mechanical manner and without application

Jayanti Vasishta, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(1), Bangalore

ITA 687/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Kavitha P. CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 234ASection 250Section 48

Notice in order to place further documents on records. 4. That the Learned Assessing Officer erred in re-opening the proceedings on mere change of opinion based on audit objection and material already available on records. That the Learned CIT(A) grossly erred in contending that the rulings relied upon

DCIT, CC-3(3), Kolkata vs. Tulsyan and Sons Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 812/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 4Section 68

company with number of concerns which had made accommodation entries and they were not genuine transactions. As we perceive, it is neither a change of opinion nor does it convey a particular interpretation of a specific provision which was done in a particular manner in the original assessment and sought

M/S. Panjos Builders Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 434/BANG/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 201(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 40Section 4o

eyes of law on the facts and circumstances of the case. f) The order of reassessment passed U/s 148 is on a mere change of opinion and is impermissible, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B

ITO, Ward-20(1), New Delhi vs. Placid Buildwell P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6744/DEL/2018[ 2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Nath Baranwal, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

contention of the assessee that the assessment has been reopened by the AO on the basis of the reasons which are mere change of opinion as the issue was already examined during the course of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. 9. The respondent craves leave

Strides Pharma Science Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1558/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.1558 /मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2012-13) Strides Pharma Science Limited [Formerly Known As Strides Arcolab Limited/ Strides Shasun Limited] 201, Devavrata, Sector -17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan: Aadcs-8104-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle – 15(3)(2), Mumbai Room No.451, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate With Shri Ninand Patade "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Anoop Hiwase & Dr.Samuel Pitta सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/10/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/01/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 24/01/2019, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. This Appeal Emanates From The Proceedings U/S. 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’].

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate with Shri Ninand PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase &
Section 154

wherein the Court has held that the right to rectify mistakes under section 154 could not be invoked in a case of mere change of opinion. A rectifiable mistake was a mistake, which was obvious and not something which had to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning

Imran Khan, Bhopal vs. The ITO2 (2), Bhyopal

In the result the issue No

ITA 168/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradimran Khan Ito 2(2) S/O Sh. Gulab Khan H. No.35 Bhopal Village-Inayatpura Kolar Board, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ckqpk5708M Assessee By Shri Niranjan Purandar Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.01.2024

Section 54B

company Ltd. (supra) Sec.263 provisions are taken only on the ground of prejudicial and interest loss of the revenue to the Government. Merely change of opinion will not give any right u/s 263 hence, the issue regarding Sec. 263 is required to be answered in favour of the assessee

Xebec Hospitality P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-27(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 877/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Ms. Chinu Bhasin , CAFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 153ASection 271(1)

occurred. 5. 2.3. without appreciating that an order under Section 147 of the Act cannot be passed merely due to a change of opinion. 3. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law ,the Ld. CIT (A)/ Assessing Officer (AO) erred in refusing to admit ... presumed that the Assessing Officer is satisfied with the reply. 11. Reopening the assessment for the same facts is nothing but change of opinion which is not accepted for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. We do not find any force in this submission of the ld. counsel

M/S Kaushal Silk Mills Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 516/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Ms. Teena Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chougule, Sr. A.R
Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

reopening the assessment u/s 147 by issue of 2 M/s. Kaushal Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. notice u/s 148 which is merely due to change of opinion and therefore the re- opening is bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case

Vg Rajamani Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. PCIT-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner dated 14

ITA 812/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.812/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. V.G. Rajamani Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-1 बनाम/ Vs. 66, Subbiah Mudaliar Street, Coimbatore. Thomas Street, Coimbatore-641 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcv-1589-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode - Ld.Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263

such circumstances, the view taken by the Commissioner in his order under Section 263 of the Act has to be termed as a change of opinion, or in other words, the Assessing Officer adopted one of the two views possible and in such circumstances, it cannot be stated that

Golden Vats Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner dated 14

ITA 416/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.416/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Golden Vats Private Limited Acit बनाम New No.272, 3Rd Floor, Central Circle-3(2), Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Chennai. / Vs. Gopalapuram , Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg-9782-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman (FCA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 263Section 263(1)Section 3Section 40

circumstances, the view taken by the Commissioner in 7 his order under Section 263 of the Act has to be termed as a change of opinion, or in other words, the Assessing Officer adopted one of the two views possible and in such circumstances, it cannot be stated that

Karamshi Jethabhai Somaiya Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemption), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2608/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri. K. Gopal a/w Ms. NehaFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule , Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

opening the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Your appellant submits that the reopening is based on mere change of opinion and thus is illegal, bad in law and void as the Assessing Officer has not come into possession of any new tangible material ... that were necessary for computation of income but this is a case wherein the assessment is sought to be reopened on account of change of opinion of the Assessing Officer about the manner of computation of the deduction under section 57 of the Act. In a similar case where

DCIT, Cir-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. East West Pipeline Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, without any adjudication upon the merits, Ground No. 5 to 8 to raised by the Revenue are dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 1999/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 73(1)

justified in law in quashing the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 holding reopening of assessment as change of opinion when on the issue of a loss of Rs.6,04,35,06,392/- claimed by assessee company towards foreign exchange loss on transaction and translation ... consideration, or caused by a mistake of law applicable, reopening would not amount to being on account of change of opinion and ought to be treated as valid even where there has been a complete disclosure of all relevant facts upon which a correct assessment could have been based

Shri Mohan Lal Gupta, Shimla vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 119/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54F

notice of the AO after completion of the original assessment proceedings and as such the action under section 147 is a change of opinion. The AO also invoked explanation 3 to Section 147 which provides that for the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the AO may assess