← 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

Anil Tilakraj Mehra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 2015/MUM/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Om KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha(CIT DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 6

only the order passed by the learned A.O. should be quashed. On the ground that the assessment could not have been reopened on mere change of opinion. v)The learned A.O. and the learned C.I.T.(A) do not have power to travel beyond the provisions contained in the Income

Anil Tilakraj Mehra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 2014/MUM/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Om KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha(CIT DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 6

only the order passed by the learned A.O. should be quashed. On the ground that the assessment could not have been reopened on mere change of opinion. v)The learned A.O. and the learned C.I.T.(A) do not have power to travel beyond the provisions contained in the Income

Anil Tilakraj Mehra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 2013/MUM/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Om KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha(CIT DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 6

only the order passed by the learned A.O. should be quashed. On the ground that the assessment could not have been reopened on mere change of opinion. v)The learned A.O. and the learned C.I.T.(A) do not have power to travel beyond the provisions contained in the Income

Anil Tilakraj Mehra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 2011/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Om KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha(CIT DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 6

only the order passed by the learned A.O. should be quashed. On the ground that the assessment could not have been reopened on mere change of opinion. v)The learned A.O. and the learned C.I.T.(A) do not have power to travel beyond the provisions contained in the Income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 1959/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- Ltu 2, Mumbai

ITA 1677/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 148

held that section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon a mere change of opinion. On appeal by the department to the Supreme Court in 320 ITR 561(SC), dismissing the appeal, held as under: “ On going through ... 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

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of India, Circle-(Ltu)-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year ssessee for assessment year

ITA 1676/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. C Naresh
Section 144B

initiate reassessment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon a mere change of opinion proceedings upon a mere change of opinion. On appeal b . On appeal by the department to the Supreme Court Supreme Court ... Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of 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 “mere change of opinion”, which cannot be per se reason to re-open. “mere change

Uma Maheswara Rao Bodapati, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 292/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 292/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Uma Maheshwara Rao Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Bodapati, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Atnpb5755D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Adv. T. Chaitanya Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Adv. T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50C

learned CIT (A), the assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment on the ground that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment on mere change of opinion which is evident from the original assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act where the Assessing Officer

M/S. Datta Dairy Products Pvt. Ltd., Buldhana vs. ITO, Ward-1, Khamgaon

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

ITA 96/NAG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Miss. J.S.Thakar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(ix)

year in question A.Y. 2011-12 on merits but failed to appreciate that the reassessment being itself without jurisdiction as based on mere change of opinion, there was no scope nor any legal sanctity for making/retaining addition of Rs.22,00,000/- as income from other sources for the year ... learned A.O. in the original assessment and after considering the same A.O. accepted the NIL income as returned. Present reassessment is based on mere change of opinion which is not permissible. It amounts to review of an order passed by one officer by another officer. Thus the reassessment itself

Jel Fianance & Investments Limited, (Formerly Known As Jubiliant Engineering Limited), Hyd, Secunderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 867/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar , AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 28

escaped assessment. In the absence of both tangible material and reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, it is only a mere change of opinion. It is also submitted that during the original assessment the then Ld. AO had disallowed certain expenditure and recomputed the deduction under section

Easyaccess Financial Services Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Copr Ward 2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 587/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 587/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Easyaccess Financial Services Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, New No.18, Old No.40, Vs. Corporate Ward 2(1), Mussuri Subramaniam Salai, Chennai. (Oliver Road), Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Aabce 4646G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. M. Lavanya, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1060282095(1) Dated 30.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2012-13 U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 27.09.2017. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Ao For Reopening Of Assessment U/S.147 R.W.S. 148 Of The Act, As The Ao During The Original Assessment Proceedings Has Formed An Opinion After Seeking Explanation & After Examining The Present Issue Of Factoring Of Income U/S.143(3) Of The Act. Hence, Now Reopening Is Bad In Law. The Assessee Also Raised The Interconnected Issue, Which Is On Merits That The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao Beig Factoring Income In The Hands Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Ms. M. Lavanya, FCA &For Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 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

P. Ravichandran, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(3), Chennai

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

ITA 582/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 582/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dr. P. Ravichandran, The Deputy Commissioner No.3, Second Link Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Raghava Reddy Colony, Central Circle – 1(3), Jaffarkhanpet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 083. Pan: Aahpr 0455M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 54B

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

Star Aviation Private Limited, Mylapore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 6, Chennai, Nungambakkam

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1497/CHNY/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1497/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Star Aviation Private Limited Acit Chennai Citi Centre, 4Th Floor बनाम/ Corporate Circle-6, 10 & 11, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai. Vs. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aajcs-6206-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V. Padmanabhan & Shri R. Venkata Raman (Cas) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. D. Praveen (Jcit) -Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanabhan & Shri RFor Respondent: Dr. D. Praveen (JCIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148

That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of the assessment in the absence of new tangible material and on a mere change of opinion, consequently not justified in not quashing the impugned order of assessment. 4. That without prejudice to the above, the Ld.CIT(A) erred ... subsequent to conclusion of regular assessment proceedings. The Ld. AR also submitted that the reassessment proceedings were, therefore, nothing but mere change of opinion which is impermissible in law. To bolster the submissions, Ld. AR relied on various decision of this Tribunal on identical facts holding that reassessment proceedings thus

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai vs. Hemalatha Rajan, Chennai

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 493/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.11/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Karuppusamy Pandiarajan, Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 7, No. 61, Tas Enclave, C3, Golden Kings Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, 121, Court, 10Th Main Road, Santhi Colony, N.H. Road, Chennai 600 034. Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aadpp4895M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.492 & 493/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Hemalatha Rajan, 3Rd Floor, Golden Kings Court, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 034. No. 61, Tas Enclave, Santhi Colony, 10Th Main Road, Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aatph2012G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 11/Chny/2020 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-8

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

untruthfulness of those facts. He argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in such situations, held it is not a case of mere change of opinion or drawing of a different inference from the same facts as were earlier available but acting on fresh information. He submits that ... fell in error in holding that the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act is mere change of opinion and prayed to allow the ground of appeal. 4 I.T.A. Nos.11, 492 & 493/Chny/20 7. The ld. AR Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate submits that there

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai vs. Hemalatha Rajan, Chennai

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 492/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.11/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Karuppusamy Pandiarajan, Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 7, No. 61, Tas Enclave, C3, Golden Kings Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, 121, Court, 10Th Main Road, Santhi Colony, N.H. Road, Chennai 600 034. Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aadpp4895M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.492 & 493/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Hemalatha Rajan, 3Rd Floor, Golden Kings Court, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 034. No. 61, Tas Enclave, Santhi Colony, 10Th Main Road, Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aatph2012G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 11/Chny/2020 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-8

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

untruthfulness of those facts. He argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in such situations, held it is not a case of mere change of opinion or drawing of a different inference from the same facts as were earlier available but acting on fresh information. He submits that ... fell in error in holding that the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act is mere change of opinion and prayed to allow the ground of appeal. 4 I.T.A. Nos.11, 492 & 493/Chny/20 7. The ld. AR Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate submits that there

ACIT Non Corporate Circle-7, Chennai vs. Karuppusamy Pandiarajan, Chennai

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 11/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.11/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Karuppusamy Pandiarajan, Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 7, No. 61, Tas Enclave, C3, Golden Kings Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, 121, Court, 10Th Main Road, Santhi Colony, N.H. Road, Chennai 600 034. Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aadpp4895M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.492 & 493/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Hemalatha Rajan, 3Rd Floor, Golden Kings Court, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 034. No. 61, Tas Enclave, Santhi Colony, 10Th Main Road, Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aatph2012G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 11/Chny/2020 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-8

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

untruthfulness of those facts. He argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in such situations, held it is not a case of mere change of opinion or drawing of a different inference from the same facts as were earlier available but acting on fresh information. He submits that ... fell in error in holding that the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act is mere change of opinion and prayed to allow the ground of appeal. 4 I.T.A. Nos.11, 492 & 493/Chny/20 7. The ld. AR Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate submits that there

Hatch Tact Innovations Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1261/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Hatch Tact Innovations Private Vs Pr. Cit, Limited, Faridabad. C2/215, Jal Vayu Towers, Sector 56, Gurgaon (Haryana) – 122 002. Pan: Aadch5527R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K. Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr & Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court. (ii)That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order u/s. 263 based upon mere change of opinion or possibility of a second view is not sustainable in law vide CIT v. Max India

Rvr Technologies Ltd., Mandideep vs. ITO-2(1), Bhopal

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 277/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

wherein a Division Bench of this Court considered the case law and came to the conclusion that in principle a mere change of opinion would be applicable only to a situation where the Assessing Officer had taken a conscious decision on the matter in issue. It was held that ... find any fault in the view taken. Consequently, we are of the view that since the case is one of a mere change of opinion that does not justify the Assessing Officer’s reopening the assessment of the assesse.” 5.1 Thus, it is settled proposition of law that reopening

Rvr Technologies Ltd., Mandideep vs. Addl. CIT-Range-3, Bhopal

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 276/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

wherein a Division Bench of this Court considered the case law and came to the conclusion that in principle a mere change of opinion would be applicable only to a situation where the Assessing Officer had taken a conscious decision on the matter in issue. It was held that ... find any fault in the view taken. Consequently, we are of the view that since the case is one of a mere change of opinion that does not justify the Assessing Officer’s reopening the assessment of the assesse.” 5.1 Thus, it is settled proposition of law that reopening

Rvr Technologies Ltd., Mandideep vs. ACIT-3(1), Bhopal

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 275/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

wherein a Division Bench of this Court considered the case law and came to the conclusion that in principle a mere change of opinion would be applicable only to a situation where the Assessing Officer had taken a conscious decision on the matter in issue. It was held that ... find any fault in the view taken. Consequently, we are of the view that since the case is one of a mere change of opinion that does not justify the Assessing Officer’s reopening the assessment of the assesse.” 5.1 Thus, it is settled proposition of law that reopening