← All Phrases

“mere change of opinion”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 147952 judgments

The decision most relied on for mere change of opinion is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on mere 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.

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.

CIT v. Usha International Ltd.
348 ITR 485 · 2012 · High Court
231
citing judgments

A reassessment is invalid due to 'mere change of opinion' if an issue was raised during original assessment but no addition was made, implying the issue was examined. However, if a subject matter was not examined and no opinion was formed, the principle of 'change of opinion' does not apply.

Judgments citing mere change of opinion

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar vs. Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited, Gandhinagar

ITA 1254/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 14A

subject matter of appeal 1.6 The appellant prays to your honour that the re-opening of the assessment made solely on a mere change of opinion, is void-ab- initio and deserves to be quashed, as such reopening is not permissible under the provisions of Section ... subject matter of appeal 1.6 The appellant prays to your honour that the re-opening of the assessment made solely on a mere change of opinion, is void-ab- 7 ITA Nos. 1165 & 1166/Ahd/2025 & ITA Nos.1254 & 1249/Ahd/2025 Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited – A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 initio and deserves

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar vs. Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited, Gandhinagar

ITA 1249/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 14A

subject matter of appeal 1.6 The appellant prays to your honour that the re-opening of the assessment made solely on a mere change of opinion, is void-ab- initio and deserves to be quashed, as such reopening is not permissible under the provisions of Section ... subject matter of appeal 1.6 The appellant prays to your honour that the re-opening of the assessment made solely on a mere change of opinion, is void-ab- 7 ITA Nos. 1165 & 1166/Ahd/2025 & ITA Nos.1254 & 1249/Ahd/2025 Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited – A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 initio and deserves

Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited, Gandhinagar vs. DCIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

ITA 1166/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 14A

subject matter of appeal 1.6 The appellant prays to your honour that the re-opening of the assessment made solely on a mere change of opinion, is void-ab- initio and deserves to be quashed, as such reopening is not permissible under the provisions of Section ... subject matter of appeal 1.6 The appellant prays to your honour that the re-opening of the assessment made solely on a mere change of opinion, is void-ab- 7 ITA Nos. 1165 & 1166/Ahd/2025 & ITA Nos.1254 & 1249/Ahd/2025 Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited – A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 initio and deserves

Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited, Gandhinagar vs. DCIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

ITA 1165/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 14A

subject matter of appeal 1.6 The appellant prays to your honour that the re-opening of the assessment made solely on a mere change of opinion, is void-ab- initio and deserves to be quashed, as such reopening is not permissible under the provisions of Section ... subject matter of appeal 1.6 The appellant prays to your honour that the re-opening of the assessment made solely on a mere change of opinion, is void-ab- 7 ITA Nos. 1165 & 1166/Ahd/2025 & ITA Nos.1254 & 1249/Ahd/2025 Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited – A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 initio and deserves

The Dalla Co Op Agri Multipurpose Society Limited, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-, Phagwara

ITA 593/ASR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 593/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Dalla Co-Op. Agri Vs. Ito, Ward (1), Multipurpose Society Ltd. C/O Phagwara. B.D. Bansal & Co. B-641, Ground Floor Near A Block Gurudwara Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. [Pan:-Aacat2201M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Lakshay Bansal, Ca Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23.03.2026

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

relevant provisions of law, facts and circumstances remained identical in all the years. Thus, order is bad in law as it leads to mere change of opinion.” 4. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee is an agricultural cooperative multipurpose society engaged in the business of supplying pesticides

Chhabi Lata Sahu, Rourkela vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Rourkela

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 626/CTK/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Chhabi Lata Sahu Ito, Ward-4, Rourkela

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Sarangi & Bishwa Jyoti Pattnaik, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 148

failing which, we are afraid, Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of “mere change of opinion”, which cannot be per se reason to re- open. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review ... well settled and its omission from section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen past assessments on mere change of opinion. To allay these fears, the Amending Act, 1989, has again amended Section 147 to reintroduce the expression ‘has reason to believe’ in place

DCIT, Central Circle-32, Delhi vs. Bses Yamuna Power Limited, New Delhi

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

ITA 5474/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Bses Yamuna Power Limited, Central Circle-32, Room No.359, E2, Ara Centre, Delhi. Vs. Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055. [ Pan-Aabcc8569N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. Deepashree Rao, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against Order Dated 23.05.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 20.12.2016 Of Ld. Assessing Officer/Dcit, Circle-5(1), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Ao’ ) U/S 147/143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Original Return Of Income Was Filed By Assessee On 29.09.2009 U/S 139(1) Of The Act After Adjusting Brought Forward Losses Of Dcit Vs. Bses Yamuna Power Ltd.

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

that assessee has made extensive purchase of capital goods at exorbitant price is tangible material suggesting the escapement of income and not a mere change of opinion which shows that case of the assessee can be reopened u/s 147 of the Act. 5. That the order ... capital goods at exorbitant price is tangible material suggesting the DCIT vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. escapement of income and not a mere change of opinion which shows that case of the assessee can be reopened u/s 147 of the Act. 6. Ld. Authorized Representative for respondent assessee submitted that

Davinder Kumar Mago, Punjabi Bagh vs. DCIT/ACIT Central Circle, Ddn, Dehradun

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 17/DDN/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Davinder Kumar Mago Vs Dcit/Acit 12/1, Punjabi Bagh, Central Circle, External Punjabi Bagh, Dehradun New Delhi-110026 Uttarakhand Pan-Ajhpm9802A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. (Vc) Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order By Pr.Cit (Central), Kanpur At Meerut Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1861 (“The Act”) Dated 08.01.2026 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

filed and framed an opinion where he found all the lender parties as genuine and having creditworthiness, again revisit of the same is mere change of opinion. No further verification is thus required in the light of the fact that AO has made sufficient enquiries and verification to satisfy himself

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Yamunanagar vs. M/S the Ved Parkash Mukand Lal, Yamunanagar

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

ITA 833/CHANDI/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

assessee had truly disclosed all the material facts during the course of original assessment proceedings itself. Therefore, the reopening was on a mere change of opinion. Further, the reopening has been done on the basis of objections by Audit party. The specific queries were raised on the impugned issue during ... regular assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) which were duly been responded to by the assessee. Therefore, the reopening was on a mere change of opinion without there being any fresh tangible material on record to form belief of escapement of income. 3.3 The Ld. CIT(A), at para 4.5, observed

DCIT vs. M/S the Ved Parkash Mukand Lal, Yamunanagar

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

ITA 832/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

assessee had truly disclosed all the material facts during the course of original assessment proceedings itself. Therefore, the reopening was on a mere change of opinion. Further, the reopening has been done on the basis of objections by Audit party. The specific queries were raised on the impugned issue during ... regular assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) which were duly been responded to by the assessee. Therefore, the reopening was on a mere change of opinion without there being any fresh tangible material on record to form belief of escapement of income. 3.3 The Ld. CIT(A), at para 4.5, observed

The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Educational Society, Yamunanagar vs. DCIT, Yamunanagar

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

ITA 825/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

assessee had truly disclosed all the material facts during the course of original assessment proceedings itself. Therefore, the reopening was on a mere change of opinion. Further, the reopening has been done on the basis of objections by Audit party. The specific queries were raised on the impugned issue during ... regular assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) which were duly been responded to by the assessee. Therefore, the reopening was on a mere change of opinion without there being any fresh tangible material on record to form belief of escapement of income. 3.3 The Ld. CIT(A), at para 4.5, observed

The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Educational Society, Yamunanagar vs. DCIT, Yamunanagar

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

ITA 824/CHANDI/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

assessee had truly disclosed all the material facts during the course of original assessment proceedings itself. Therefore, the reopening was on a mere change of opinion. Further, the reopening has been done on the basis of objections by Audit party. The specific queries were raised on the impugned issue during ... regular assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) which were duly been responded to by the assessee. Therefore, the reopening was on a mere change of opinion without there being any fresh tangible material on record to form belief of escapement of income. 3.3 The Ld. CIT(A), at para 4.5, observed

Infinity International, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi Present Juris. the ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 518/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalinfinity International, Nfac, Delhi Vs. H-611, Titanium City Centre, Present Jurisdiction 100 Ft. Anandnagar Road, Ito, Ward 3(3)(1), Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Ahmedabad [Pan: Aaefi 2610 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Ukti Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153(3)Section 250Section 68

details relating to unsecured loans, including names, addresses, PAN, confirmations and bank statements, were available on record and therefore reopening amounts to a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible in law. 7. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Oasys Cybermatics Pvt Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 3102/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mr. ARV Srinivasan, CIT for Mr. Bipin C. N., CITFor Respondent: Mr. Ravi Kannan &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)Section 5(3)

High Court allowed the writ petition and held that the reopening of the assessment was prompted by a mere change of opinion and amounted to review of the earlier assessment which is impermissible in law, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India ... No.651 of 2022 wherein the Hon’ble High Court quashed the reassessment proceedings holding that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion. The ld.CIT(A), after considering the said order of the Hon’ble High Court, held that once the reassessment proceedings have been quashed, the additions

Sivasundar Selvakumari, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(6), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3154/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Balakrishnan, CIT
Section 139(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 194ISection 45

only on account of disallowance of mortgage discharge amount under section 48. The reassessment, therefore, travels beyond the recorded reasons and constitutes a mere change of opinion on computation, which is impermissible under law. Further, non-furnishing of recorded reasons despite request is contrary to law laid down

Virchow Petrochemical Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1191/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2026AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

that as the AO had without any new material coming to his notice after the conclusion of the original assessment, based on a mere “change of opinion” reopened the concluded assessment of the assessee company that was originally framed by the AO vide his order passed under section

Mark Steels Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2603/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

loan, confirmation, books of account etc. filed by the assessee and hence the assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act on a mere change of opinion is devoid of legally sustainable merits. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in having accepted the AO's clarification ... date of transactions have been mentioned in the assessment order or brought on record to counter the argument that it was a mere change of opinion and the reasons recorded were not fully applicable to the facts of the case of the assessee. 8. Ground No. 5 being general

Bangalore Union Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2483/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (by Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 2(22)(e)

tangible information coming to the AO's possession, the reopening of the assessment based on the same set of facts amounts to a mere change of opinion, which is not legally sustainable. Insofar as the addition made u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act is concerned, it was contended that ... information already available in the assessment records, without any reference to new or tangible material which in our considered view constitutes a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible in law. The AO had examined the reply furnished with regard to the details of share application money received

Rohitkumar Chinubhai Modi, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Cir. 5(2) Now DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1961/AHD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Satish Solanki, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Therefore, the reopening of assessment in the present case cannot be said to be invalid or based on a mere change of opinion. 19. As regards the contention that the Department is taking contradictory stands by rejecting the purchaser’s claim of deduction under section

Saurabhbhai Rohitbhai Modi, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Cir. 5(2) Now DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1960/AHD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Satish Solanki, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Therefore, the reopening of assessment in the present case cannot be said to be invalid or based on a mere change of opinion. 19. As regards the contention that the Department is taking contradictory stands by rejecting the purchaser’s claim of deduction under section