← 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

H. Sherul & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 551/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vaidyalingan, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougule (Addl. CIT) SRDR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

assessment, we find that the Ld.AO had not made any separate investigation against the unsecured loan which was treated as accommodation entry. Mere change of opinion cannot be the reason for reopening. We respectfully relied on the order of Seimens Financial Services P. Ltd (supra)and Aditi Constructions vs DCIT

H. Sherul & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 550/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vaidyalingan, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougule (Addl. CIT) SRDR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

assessment, we find that the Ld.AO had not made any separate investigation against the unsecured loan which was treated as accommodation entry. Mere change of opinion cannot be the reason for reopening. We respectfully relied on the order of Seimens Financial Services P. Ltd (supra)and Aditi Constructions vs DCIT

ACIT Ltu 2, Chennai vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai

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

ITA 946/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.775/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011 ) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, Income Tax, Chennai 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 034. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.946/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011. ) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, 763, Anna Salai, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 002. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaci 1223J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. C. Naresh, C.A., Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, IRS, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

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

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-2, Chennai

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

ITA 775/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.775/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011 ) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, Income Tax, Chennai 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 034. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.946/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011. ) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, 763, Anna Salai, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 002. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaci 1223J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. C. Naresh, C.A., Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, IRS, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

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

Brij Bihari Agrawal, Jaipur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

Kelvinator of India Ltd. (SC) Reassessment — Reason to believe — Change of opinion — After 1 April, 1989, power to reopen is much wider — However, mere “change of opinion” cannot per se be reason to reopen — AO has power to reassess but no power to review — If the concept of “change ... Addl. CIT (Bom.) S. 143(3) — Reassessment — Notice — Validity - Deduction allowed in assessment order — Reassessment on basis of material considered during original assessment — Mere change of opinion — reassessment invalid. CIT Vs. Indian Sugar & General Industry Export Import Corpn. Ltd. [2008] 170 Taxman 229 (Delhi High Court)held that reopening based

Gayatri Creatives, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(2) Now Circle 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 565/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

income of the time of original assessment and it is settled position of law that the assessment cannot be re-opened for a mere change of opinion.” 3. The assessee filed his return of income of Rs.42,98,920/- for the Assessment Year 2010-11 on 24.03.2011. The assessment under ... further submitted that it is settled position of law that the assessment cannot be reopened for mere change of opinion. On merit, the ld. AR submitted that the work-in-progress furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings clearly reveal that closing work-in-progress was Rs.7

Cheyur Ramakrishnan, Chennai vs. ITO, Business Ward - 2(3), Chennai

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

ITA 334/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2024. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-2008) Cheyur Ramakrishnan Rajkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.7/4, Meenakshi P.S Business Ward Ii(3) Sivasamy Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Accpr 4434P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Subramanian, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. R. Subramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(14)Section 54B

consequent reassessment are bad in law. 7. For that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the reopening was done on mere change of opinion and hence the assessment is liable to be quashed. The test of change of opinion would be applicable even in a case where

Goyal Vegoils Limited, Kasar, Kota vs. DCIT, Circle -2, Kota

In the result ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee

ITA 243/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

taxmann.com 304 (Bombay) wherein it was observed - 12) Therefore the power to reassess cannot be exercised on the basis of mere change of opinion i.e. if all facts are available on record and a particular opinion is formed, then merely because there is change of opinion on the part ... that notice dated 28 March 2013 under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen assessment for A.Y. 2008-09 is based on mere change of opinion. However, according to Mr. Chhotaray, learned Counsel for the revenue the aforesaid issue now raised has not been considered earlier as the same

ACIT, Circle-24(1), Mumbai vs. Jasvinder Kalyan Saluja, Mumbai

In the result, the cross the result, the cross-objections of the assessee are allowed of the assessee are allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1987/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Circle-24(1), Jasvinder Kalyan Saluja, 601, 6Th Floor, K-1, Balkrishna Chs, Jp Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Road, Andheri West, Parel, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Amgps 5143 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay SinghFor Respondent: 08/07/2024
Section 69A

powers to the Assessing Officer to r would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be assessments on the basis of "mere change ... from section 147 section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer rs to the Assessing Officer to reopen past assessments on mere change of opinion. To allay these to reopen past assessments on mere change of opinion. To allay these to reopen past assessments on mere change

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 759/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

SDPL. This fact in itself makes the picture very clear that reopening has been carried out based only on borrowed satisfaction and a mere change of opinion. Though various judgments have been referred by Ld. Counsel for the assessee, we will first take note of the Co-ordinate Bench ... power to review his own order - Query raised by Assessing Officer answered and accepted during original assessment - Reopening of assessment on mere change of opinion - Not permissible - KNIGHT RIDERS SPORTS PVT. LTD. vs. ASST. CIT (Born.) ITR 459/ Page 16 Page 28 of 31 I.T.A. No. 757 to 759/Kol/2022

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 758/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

SDPL. This fact in itself makes the picture very clear that reopening has been carried out based only on borrowed satisfaction and a mere change of opinion. Though various judgments have been referred by Ld. Counsel for the assessee, we will first take note of the Co-ordinate Bench ... power to review his own order - Query raised by Assessing Officer answered and accepted during original assessment - Reopening of assessment on mere change of opinion - Not permissible - KNIGHT RIDERS SPORTS PVT. LTD. vs. ASST. CIT (Born.) ITR 459/ Page 16 Page 28 of 31 I.T.A. No. 757 to 759/Kol/2022

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 757/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

SDPL. This fact in itself makes the picture very clear that reopening has been carried out based only on borrowed satisfaction and a mere change of opinion. Though various judgments have been referred by Ld. Counsel for the assessee, we will first take note of the Co-ordinate Bench ... power to review his own order - Query raised by Assessing Officer answered and accepted during original assessment - Reopening of assessment on mere change of opinion - Not permissible - KNIGHT RIDERS SPORTS PVT. LTD. vs. ASST. CIT (Born.) ITR 459/ Page 16 Page 28 of 31 I.T.A. No. 757 to 759/Kol/2022

Ecgc Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 352/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

shares. What is sought to be done by the Assessing Officer now is a reopening of assessment after four years, on a mere change of opinion. The non-furnishing of the form is only an excuse given by the Assessing Officer to attempt to exercise a non-existent power

L.K. Exports, Mumbai vs. ITO Mum-W-(199)(91), Ward 23(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3582/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh C. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151

information and satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer to make addition of balance 95%, in our view, would be clearly based on a mere change of opinion. It is necessary to note that the assessment of income 5 L.K. Exports and consequent taxability is within the powers of the Assessing ... impugned notice issued by the JAO is not sustainable. It is now well settled that the re-opening cannot be made on mere change of opinion. At any rate, there is no circumstance to indicate, and it is nobody’s case, that there was any failure on the part

M/S Man Diesel & Turbo India Ltd., Maharashtra vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 4295/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singha.Y. 2003-04

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

course of the reassessment proceeding. 5.1.5 Submission of the appellant, that initiation of proceeding u/s 147 by the AO is a mere change of opinion is of no merit. Because, the issue on 6 account of which the proceedings u/s 147 were initiated by the A.O., were never examined ... records as had been subject matter of completed assessment proceedings, still notice u/s 148 will be valid and that the principle that a mere change of opinion cannot be a basis for re-opening completed assessment would have no application where order of assessment does not address itself

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Amalfi Realty Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 888/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Chandran (CIT-DR)For Respondent: Shri Mihir Naniwadekar
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(viib)

scrutiny assessment made on 28.12.2017. He, therefore, submitted that this is a clear case where the re-opening is based on a mere change of opinion. He submitted that the DCF method is based on the projected cash inflow and the fact that the projected figures were not met cannot

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Add/Joint/Deputy/ACIT, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is

ITA 569/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaand

For Appellant: Shri Biswanath Das, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Faroog Irani, Ld. AR
Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(ii)Section 36(2)(viia)

chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The assessee submits that the objections taken by assessee that the impugned notice has been issued on mere change of opinion, has not been dealt with in the impugned order which results in the assessee's submission of change of opinion, being accepted ... come to the conclusion that there is an escapement of income from assessment. Such reason to believe should not be on account of mere change of opinion. Therefore, where facts have been viewed during the original proceeding and an assessment order has been passed then in such cases, reopening

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is

ITA 4056/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaand

For Appellant: Shri Biswanath Das, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Faroog Irani, Ld. AR
Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(ii)Section 36(2)(viia)

chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The assessee submits that the objections taken by assessee that the impugned notice has been issued on mere change of opinion, has not been dealt with in the impugned order which results in the assessee's submission of change of opinion, being accepted ... come to the conclusion that there is an escapement of income from assessment. Such reason to believe should not be on account of mere change of opinion. Therefore, where facts have been viewed during the original proceeding and an assessment order has been passed then in such cases, reopening

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Vista Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1340/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

assessment proceedings completed under Sec.143(3)of the Act. 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer has further erred in initiating re-assessment proceedings on mere change of opinion as issues of allotment of shares and share premium were examined in the regular assessment proceedings by the Assessing Officer by issuance

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Nagpur vs. Vinodkumar Rajendralal Kochhar, Kamptee

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

ITA 386/NAG/2023[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44A

submitted within 15 days of receipt of this Audit Objection Memo. 6. We find that the reopening has been made on the mere change of opinion without any tangible material. The Assessing Officer had applied its mind at the time of assessment since the facts were on record and reopening ... change of opinion is not permissible even within 4 years. “Reopening of an assessment on mere change of opinion without any tangible material is unsustainable - Assessing Officer deemed to have applied his mind if facts are on record and reopening under section 147 on change of opinion is not permissible