← 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

Mehli Mehta Music Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-2(4), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4307/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/ Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (SR. D.R.)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

with regard to genuineness of donation or creditworthiness of 'N', reassessment notice could not be said to have been given on basis of mere change of opinion. Consolidated Photo & Finvest LTd V/s ACIT (2006) 151 Taxman 41 (Del. HC)- Action under section 147 is permissible even if Assessing Officer gathered ... reasons to believe from very same record as had been subject-matter of completed assessment proceedings. Further, the principle that a mere change of opinion cannot be a basis for reopening completed assessments would have no application where order of assessment does not address itself to aspect which is basis

Mehli Mehta Music Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 4306/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/ Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (SR. D.R.)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

with regard to genuineness of donation or creditworthiness of 'N', reassessment notice could not be said to have been given on basis of mere change of opinion. Consolidated Photo & Finvest LTd V/s ACIT (2006) 151 Тахтап 41 (Del. HC)- Action under section 147 is permissible even if Assessing Officer gathered ... reasons to believe from very same record as had been subject-matter of completed assessment proceedings. Further, the principle that a mere change of opinion cannot be a basis for reopening completed assessments would have no application where order of assessment does not address itself to aspect which is basis

Mehli Mehta Music Foundation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 4261/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/ Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (SR. D.R.)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

with regard to genuineness of donation or creditworthiness of 'N', reassessment notice could not be said to have been given on basis of mere change of opinion. Consolidated Photo & Finvest LTd V/s ACIT (2006) 151 Taxman 41 (Del. HC)- Action under section 147 is permissible even if Assessing Officer gathered ... reasons to believe from very same record as had been subject-matter of completed assessment proceedings. Further, the principle that a mere change of opinion cannot be a basis for reopening completed assessments would have no application where order of assessment does not address itself to aspect which is basis

Mehli Mehta Music Foundation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 4260/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/ Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (SR. D.R.)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

with regard to genuineness of donation or creditworthiness of 'N', reassessment notice could not be said to have been given on basis of mere change of opinion. Consolidated Photo & Finvest LTd V/s ACIT (2006) 151 Тахтап 41 (Del. HC)- Action under section 147 is permissible even if Assessing Officer gathered ... reasons to believe from very same record as had been subject-matter of completed assessment proceedings. Further, the principle that a mere change of opinion cannot be a basis for reopening completed assessments would have no application where order of assessment does not address itself to aspect which is basis

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle, Madurai vs. M/S Ramco Systems Limited, Rajapalayam

ITA 1269/CHNY/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Mr.S. Muralidhar, FCA &For Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA

Bala Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., West Midnapur vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 38, West Midnapur

ITA 1378/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Saumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Anindya Kumar Bandopadhyay, DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 271BSection 80PSection 80P(2)

that on the facts of the case, the impugned order is at best capable of being classified as a case of mere change of opinion, hence, the assessment is bad in law should be quashed. 3. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong

Bala Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., West Midnapur vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 38, Midnapur, West Midnapur

ITA 1377/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Saumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Anindya Kumar Bandopadhyay, DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 271BSection 80PSection 80P(2)

that on the facts of the case, the impugned order is at best capable of being classified as a case of mere change of opinion, hence, the assessment is bad in law should be quashed. 3. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong

Bala Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., West Midnapur vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 38, Paschim Medinipur

ITA 1376/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Saumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Anindya Kumar Bandopadhyay, DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 271BSection 80PSection 80P(2)

that on the facts of the case, the impugned order is at best capable of being classified as a case of mere change of opinion, hence, the assessment is bad in law should be quashed. 3. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong

Ashok Kumar Kolla, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 876/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. & आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.876/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Ashok Kumar Kolla Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 6(1) Pan:Afwpk8481L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V.Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

very same issue. The learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that, the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment, on mere change of opinion, which is evident from the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer where the indexed cost of acquisition has been considered, on the basis of details

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

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

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

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

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

favour of assessee]" 4.13 Considering the above decisions, reassessment notice relating to alleged escapement of income relating to disallowance under Section 14A is mere change of opinion on part of the subsequent Assessing Officer. In view of detailed discussions made herein above, reassessment notice issued by AO is nothing ... erred in quashing the assessment order holding that reassessment notice relating to alleged escapement of income relating to disallowance u/s.14A is mere change of opinion on part of the subsequent Assessing Officer, without considering the difference in computing the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D. 4. On the facts

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

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

available with the Assessing Officer to form belief that income had escaped assessment and that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on account of mere change of opinion. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, it was also contended that there was no live nexus or link between the formation of belief

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

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

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

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

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

present facts of the case is not based on the fulfilment of the precondition stipulated under the section and that, it is mere ‗change of opinion‘ without there being any tangible material to come to such conclusion. 5.4. On the contrary the Ld.DR vehemently opposed the arguments of the Ld.AR ... vide order dated 24/01/2014. The Ld.DR vehemently argued that, re-opening of assessment in present facts of the case cannot be termed as mere change of opinion. He submitted that the Ld.AO examined the details filed by the assessee during the assessment proceeding on the basis that the same were

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

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

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

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

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

present facts of the case is not based on the fulfilment of the precondition stipulated under the section and that, it is mere ‗change of opinion‘ without there being any tangible material to come to such conclusion. 5.4. On the contrary the Ld.DR vehemently opposed the arguments of the Ld.AR ... vide order dated 24/01/2014. The Ld.DR vehemently argued that, re-opening of assessment in present facts of the case cannot be termed as mere change of opinion. He submitted that the Ld.AO examined the details filed by the assessee during the assessment proceeding on the basis that the same were

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

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

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

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

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

present facts of the case is not based on the fulfilment of the precondition stipulated under the section and that, it is mere ‗change of opinion‘ without there being any tangible material to come to such conclusion. 5.4. On the contrary the Ld.DR vehemently opposed the arguments of the Ld.AR ... vide order dated 24/01/2014. The Ld.DR vehemently argued that, re-opening of assessment in present facts of the case cannot be termed as mere change of opinion. He submitted that the Ld.AO examined the details filed by the assessee during the assessment proceeding on the basis that the same were

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

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

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

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

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

believe" failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. 7. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review ... 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nvidia Graphics Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee s party allowed

ITA 1111/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Mahadevpura Village, Central Circle – 2(4), K. R. Puram Hobli, Marathalli Bangalore. Bagmane Goldstone Building, North Tower, Mahadevpura S.O, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan : Aabcn 9200 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 28

laid down in law, without any new material only by considering the same material on assessment record. Impugned reassess is nothing more than mere change of opinion. Free of Cost assets 5. Impugned order has erred, in law and in facts. by confirming addition of INR 3.54,82.002, made under

Aarav Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Cent. Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

ITA 13/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 145Section 147Section 148

effect that the company viz Radhe Developers (India) Ltd. is a penny stock company based on irrelevant analysis is nothing but mere change of opinion on borrowed satisfaction, which is not permissible in law and thus impugned reassessment order requires to be quashed as void-ab-initio ... effect that the company i.e. M/s. Radhe Developers Ltd. is a penny stock being based on irrelevant analysis is nothing but mere change of opinion of borrowed satisfaction, which is not permissible in law. Thus, the impugned re-assessment order requires to be quashed ab-initio. The ld. A.R. submitted

Vicky Rajesh Jhaveri, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Cent. Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

ITA 12/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 145Section 147Section 148

effect that the company viz Radhe Developers (India) Ltd. is a penny stock company based on irrelevant analysis is nothing but mere change of opinion on borrowed satisfaction, which is not permissible in law and thus impugned reassessment order requires to be quashed as void-ab-initio ... effect that the company i.e. M/s. Radhe Developers Ltd. is a penny stock being based on irrelevant analysis is nothing but mere change of opinion of borrowed satisfaction, which is not permissible in law. Thus, the impugned re-assessment order requires to be quashed ab-initio. The ld. A.R. submitted