← 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

The Lake Palace Hotels & Motelsprivate Limited, Udaipur vs. PCIT, Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 52/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

attract the clause (a) or (b) to explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act and thus, it is nothing but a change of opinion and ld. PCIT intend that the enquiry should have been done in the light of the his view which is not permitted in the eyes ... attract the clause (a) or (b) to explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act and thus, it is nothing but a change of opinion In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the order of the PCIT is not in accordance with the provisions of section

A3Logics (India) Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40a

despite there being complete application of mind by the AO on the subjected issues and it was nothing but a case of change of opinion and/or suspicion, based on which, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 is not permissible. The impugned order dt. 21.03.2023 therefore, lacks valid jurisdiction

M/S. Larsen & Tourbro Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2) & 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1009/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Aby T Vakery & Shri Amarjit Singhlarsen & Toubro Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of L&T House, N M Marg Income Tax, Circle- (5)(4), Ballard Estate, Fort Mumbai (Erstwhile Mumbai- 400001 Income Tax Officer- 2(2) Room No. 1927, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Sushil K. Poddar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 35Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in resorting to reassessment proceedings on account of a mere change in opinion on the same set of facts, which tantamounts to the Assessing Officer reviewing the action of his predecessor. Having regards to the facts and circumstances ... available in the assessment records and there are no new facts which have come into possession of your Office. With due respect any change of opinion/ legal stance on allowability/taxability of various claims cannot become a subject matter under any circumstances for reassessment. We further object to recalculation of interest

Jai International, Udaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 23/JODH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: The Date Of Hearing. 4. That The Hon’Ble Pcit Has Not Given Any Specific Instance About Rejecting The Details Submitted By Us In Response To Their Query. 5. That The Hon’Ble Pcit Has Not Given Any Specific Reason/Speaking Order Contradicting Case Laws Submitted By Us. The Hon’Ble Pcit Only Says That The Facts Are Different.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

There must be material before the PCIT to hold that an order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue and mere change of opinion cannot render the order erroneous. That assessee has submitted all the required details, confirmations and produce bills of sundry creditors to the Learned ... attract the clause (a) or (b) to explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act and thus, it is nothing but a change of opinion and ld. PCIT intend that the enquiry should have been done in the light of the his view which is not permitted in the eyes

M/S. Minestone, Mumbai vs. ACIT 18(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2546/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Minestone Acit-18(2) Room No. 32, 4Th Floor, Plot No. 98, Mumbai -400 020 Sagar Bhavan, Building No.2, Vs. Kantilal M Sharma Marg, Lohar Chawl, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400 002

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148(1)Section 250

proviso to section 147 of the Act. The ld. AR for the assessee further contended that the reopening was a mere change of opinion by the A.O. and was to reconsider the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The ld. AR further stated that the addition

ACIT, Wardha Circle, Wardha vs. M/S Automark Technologies (India ) Limited, Yavatmal

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 403/NAG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that re-opening of the case was merely a change of opinion contrary to the view of judgment by Honorable Bombay High Court in the case of CIT-vs- Yuvraj 315 ITR 84 (Bom) inspite of the fact

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur vs. M/S Jagannathdas Harichandmal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Raigarh

In the result appeal of revenue is partly allowed in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 106/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.106/Rpr/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Jagannathdas Harichandmal Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Sadar Bazar, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan: Aaccj2840G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal, Dated 16.03.2022 Which In Turn Arises From The Order By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Dated 30.12.2018 For A.Y.2012-13. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: “ 1. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law, While Holding Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of Act As Invalid & Void-Ab-Initio, The Ld. Cit(A) Completely Ignored The Fact That During The Course Of Survey, The Assessee Failed To Discharge Its Burden In Establishing 'The Identity, Creditworthiness & Genuineness Of The Transactions As Required U/S 68 Of The Income Tac Act. Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring That Reassessment Proceeding Are Based On Fresh Facts/Information Rather Than Change Of Opinion. 2. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring That Confirmation Of Concealment Of Income/Disclosure Made In Statement Recorded During Survey U/S 133A Of Act Is An Information, Though Not Conclusive, Which May Be Used In Regular Assessment Or Reassessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Income Tac Act. Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring that reassessment proceeding are based on fresh facts/information rather than change of opinion. 2. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in ignoring that confirmation of concealment of income/disclosure made ... ground that it was not justified in making the additions under reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of change of opinion. Observations of Ld CIT(A) in this respect are reproduced as under:- 3.1.2 I have considered the factual matrix of the case, plea raised

Gayatri Devi, Jaipur vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 405/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

subjected issues being the loans received and duly verified by the AO, it was nothing but a case of change of opinion, based on which, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 is not permissible. The impugned order dated 21-10-2022, therefore, lacks valid jurisdiction

Black Box Ltd (Formerly Known As Agc Networks Ltd), Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1184/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Aby T Vakery & Shri Amarjit Singhblack Box Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 5Th Floor, Building No.9, Income Tax- 14(1)(1) Airoli Knowledge Park, 460, Aayakar Bhavan, Midc Industrial Area, M.K. Road, Airoli West, Navi Mumbai- 400020 Mumbai- 400708

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 35D

opening c. The learned CIT (A) erred in not appreciating that the re- opening of assessment on a mere change of opinion without any new tangible material being brought on record is not valid as held by Courts on various occasions; d. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating

M/S. Hemant Associates, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-27(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for AY 2009-10 is allowed and the appeal for AY

ITA 1423/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla() & Smt. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

assessment on the same purchases are done by making an addition under section 69C based on the credit which is a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. The ld AR further submitted that in the appeal against the order under section 143(3), the SMC bench of the Tribunal ... assessment. Accordingly in our view, there is merit in the contention of the ld AR that the initiation of reassessment is merely a change of opinion and that no addition can be made in the reassessment for the same purchases. Considering the fact that the impugned purchases have already been

M/S. Hemant Associates, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-27(1)(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for AY 2009-10 is allowed and the appeal for AY

ITA 1421/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla() & Smt. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

assessment on the same purchases are done by making an addition under section 69C based on the credit which is a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. The ld AR further submitted that in the appeal against the order under section 143(3), the SMC bench of the Tribunal ... assessment. Accordingly in our view, there is merit in the contention of the ld AR that the initiation of reassessment is merely a change of opinion and that no addition can be made in the reassessment for the same purchases. Considering the fact that the impugned purchases have already been

DCIT, CC-6(1), Mumbai vs. Neepa Real Estates Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1041/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Years: 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner M/S. Neepa Real Estates Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., 12Th Floor, Hallmark Central Circle -6(1), Room No. 1905, Business Plaza, Vs. 19Th Floor, Sang Dnyaneshwar Marg, Air India Building, Near Gurunanak Hospital, Nariman Point, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400 021 Mumbai- 400 051 Pan: Aaacn1884C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 40Section 68

confirming the reopening of the assessment without appreciating that reopening was done without any new tangible material and reopening was nothing but a change of opinion which is impermissible in law and hence reopening is bad in law. 3) The Learned Commissioner Appeals erred in confirming the order

Apm Industries Ltd, Bhiwadi, Alwar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 203/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 203/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 APM Industries Ltd. SP-147, Industrial Area Bhiwadi, Alwar cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-01, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCA 5114 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a l

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. PoddarFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 263Section 40Section 40A(7)

attract the clause (a) or (b) to explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act and thus, it is nothing but a change of opinion and ld. PCIT intend that the enquiry should have been done in the light of the his view which is not permitted in the eyes

Sahana Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Mumbai

ITA 1959/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Amit BothraFor Respondent: Mr. Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

based on a assessment without any fresh material and only based on a assessment without any fresh material and only based on a change of opinion. change of opinion. 4. 4. THAT your appellant craves to modify, delete or make 4. THAT your appellant craves to modify, delete or make

Maya Devi Agrawal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(3), Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of my observations above

ITA 193/RPR/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 193/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Maya Devi Agrawal Near Dena Bank, Dupan Para Kharora, Raipur (C.G.)-493 225 Pan : Acipa5876A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(3), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

case and in law, reopening of the concluded assessment u/s.143(3) dt.2-12-10 in absence of any fresh/new material, be treated merely change of opinion on the same material facts, is not permissible in the eyes of law, is liable to be quashed." "2. On the facts and circumstances ... initiating proceedings u/s.147 of the Act on two-fold grounds, viz. (i) the reopening of the concluded assessment based on a “mere change of opinion” was not sustainable in the eyes of the law; and (ii) that as per the mandate of “1st proviso” to Section

Chomansingh M. Deora, Mumbai vs. PCIT-19, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 401/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 57

case and in Law, the learned PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 to the case of the Appellant only by way of change of opinion, without pointing out any error in the order of the A.O. and also by disregarding detailed submissions made to him from time to time ... provision of sec. 263 merely because he wants to take a view different from the one taken by the Assessing Officer and thereby changing the opinion of the Assessing Officer by his opinion. b. In the facts of the case and in Law, the learned PCIT has erred in holding

ADIT Infrapower & Multitrading Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4944/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4944 /Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Adit Infrapower & Multitrading Pvt. Vs Pcit, Ltd., Da-08, 2Nd Floor, Vikas Marg, Gurgaon Shakarpur, New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahca5582H Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

section 263 of the Act 6. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order u/s 263 is merely change of opinion. The order u/s 143(3) passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer does not in any way represent erroneous order. The action of the Ld. PCIT

Aman Growth Fund Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 659/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 659/Del/2021, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Aman Growth Fund Vs. Pr. Cit(Central), Private Limited Delhi-2 L-4, Green Park Extension New Delhi Pan : Aaaca0525B Appellant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

under Section 56(2)(viib) on account of deemed dividend; • That subsequently, ld. PCIT shifted its stand reflecting a mere change of opinion by issuing another SCN dated 17.03.2020 Rs. 106.78 crores had escaped assessment during the relevant AY. Pertinent to note that in the said SCN, ld. PCIT

DCIT-Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. S D Corporation Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide ITA Nos

ITA 6204/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.6191 To 6194, 6204 & 6033 /Mum/2019 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mahita NairFor Respondent: Dharmesh Shah &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

facts and circumstances and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified, in holding that reopening of assessment was due to change of opinion, when, the same was on appreciation of facts on records, in the light of information received, leading to formation of belief, that income had escaped assessment ... original Assessment order. Hence, this is not a case where the Assessing Officer sought to review his earlier findings, nor is case of 'change of opinion'. P a g e | 7 ITA Nos. 6191 to 6194, 6204 & 6033/Mum/2019 DCIT ,CC-3(3)(1) Vs. M/s S.D. Corporation

DCIT-Circle-3(3) (1), Mumbai vs. S D Corporation Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide ITA Nos

ITA 6194/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.6191 To 6194, 6204 & 6033 /Mum/2019 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mahita NairFor Respondent: Dharmesh Shah &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

facts and circumstances and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified, in holding that reopening of assessment was due to change of opinion, when, the same was on appreciation of facts on records, in the light of information received, leading to formation of belief, that income had escaped assessment ... original Assessment order. Hence, this is not a case where the Assessing Officer sought to review his earlier findings, nor is case of 'change of opinion'. P a g e | 7 ITA Nos. 6191 to 6194, 6204 & 6033/Mum/2019 DCIT ,CC-3(3)(1) Vs. M/s S.D. Corporation