← 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

M/S. A V M Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1632/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

decision of the Tribunal in Boudier Christian's case, the impugned notice under section 147/148 would obviously be on the basis of a mere change of opinion by the income-tax authorities, which would not be valid. In the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case, - O.N.G.C

Pooja Developers, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-29(2)(5), (Current Juridiction: Ward-41(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3690/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3690/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Pooja Developers बिधम/ Ito-29(2)(5) Shop No. 4 (Damini Wines) [Current Jurisdiction Vs. Shiv Shakti Building, Jn Ward 41(1)(3), Mumbai] Road, Near Apna Bazar, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400080. Kurla Complex, Mumbai- 400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaifp5595M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Snehal Shah Revenue By: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 801B(10)Section 80I

words “reason to belief’ has to be given, otherwise, the Assessing Officer would exercise arbitrary power by re-opening the assessment on mere change of opinion. The Hon'ble Court held that the Assessing Officer has no power to review but has power to re-assess and such power ... based on fulfilment of certain pre-conditions one of which is, such re-assessment cannot be on the basis of a mere change of opinion. The Hon'ble Court held, even after 1st April 1989, the Assessing Officer has power to re- open provided there is tangible material to come

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -1(4), Kolkata vs. K Kalpana Industries India Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for Assessment Year

ITA 816/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 815 & 816/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income K Kalpana Industries India Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kolkata 28, Pretoria Street Kolkata - 700071 [Pan : Aabck2239D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Kolkata [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Evenly Dt. 25/09/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 34 Days & 11 Days In Filing Of These Appeals By The Department For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. After Hearing The Ld. D/R We Are Convinced That It Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing These Appeals On Time. Though The Department Has Not Filed Any Petition/Application For Condonation, The Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Sesh Nath Singh & Ors. V. Baidyabati · Sheoraphuli Cooperative Bank

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 28Section 5

mind by the Assessing Officer to the same set of facts and in such a situation, it would be a case of mere change of opinion which does not provide justification to the Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961. When the primary

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. K Kalpana Industries India Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for Assessment Year

ITA 815/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 815 & 816/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income K Kalpana Industries India Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kolkata 28, Pretoria Street Kolkata - 700071 [Pan : Aabck2239D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Kolkata [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Evenly Dt. 25/09/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 34 Days & 11 Days In Filing Of These Appeals By The Department For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. After Hearing The Ld. D/R We Are Convinced That It Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing These Appeals On Time. Though The Department Has Not Filed Any Petition/Application For Condonation, The Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Sesh Nath Singh & Ors. V. Baidyabati · Sheoraphuli Cooperative Bank

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 28Section 5

mind by the Assessing Officer to the same set of facts and in such a situation, it would be a case of mere change of opinion which does not provide justification to the Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961. When the primary

M/S Josan Industries, Jalalabad vs. DCIT, Cl-1, Intl. Taxation, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 66/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 64 To 66/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Josan Industries, Vs. The Dcit Circle-1, बनाम Jalalabad, International Taxation, H.O., Guruharshai, Chandigarh Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaafj7294F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kahlon, CIT DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 234Section 68

declared by the Assessee were accepted by the Assessing Officer, therefore, we find that it has been rightly contended that there was a mere change of opinion on the part of the Assessing Officer while recording the alleged reasons for belief of escapement of income. In fact, there ... Assessee. 20. In view of the above, we hold that the reopening of the completed assessment was on the basis of a mere change of opinion of the Assessing Officer which cannot be a ground of re-assessment, as held in ‘Kelvinator of India Ltd.’, (supra). Further, since there

M/S Josan Industries, Jalalabad vs. DCIT, Cl-1, Intl. Taxation, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 65/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 64 To 66/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Josan Industries, Vs. The Dcit Circle-1, बनाम Jalalabad, International Taxation, H.O., Guruharshai, Chandigarh Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaafj7294F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kahlon, CIT DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 234Section 68

declared by the Assessee were accepted by the Assessing Officer, therefore, we find that it has been rightly contended that there was a mere change of opinion on the part of the Assessing Officer while recording the alleged reasons for belief of escapement of income. In fact, there ... Assessee. 20. In view of the above, we hold that the reopening of the completed assessment was on the basis of a mere change of opinion of the Assessing Officer which cannot be a ground of re-assessment, as held in ‘Kelvinator of India Ltd.’, (supra). Further, since there

M/S Josan Industries, Jalalabad vs. DCIT, Cl-1, Intl. Taxation, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 64/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 64 To 66/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Josan Industries, Vs. The Dcit Circle-1, बनाम Jalalabad, International Taxation, H.O., Guruharshai, Chandigarh Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaafj7294F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kahlon, CIT DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 234Section 68

declared by the Assessee were accepted by the Assessing Officer, therefore, we find that it has been rightly contended that there was a mere change of opinion on the part of the Assessing Officer while recording the alleged reasons for belief of escapement of income. In fact, there ... Assessee. 20. In view of the above, we hold that the reopening of the completed assessment was on the basis of a mere change of opinion of the Assessing Officer which cannot be a ground of re-assessment, as held in ‘Kelvinator of India Ltd.’, (supra). Further, since there

Gujarat Industries Power Co.Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 3049/AHD/2010[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Mar 2024AY 1998-99

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 3049 & 3050/Ahd/2010 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Years: (1998-1999 & 1999 & 2000) Gujarat Industries Power Company The Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, P.O Petrochemicals, Circle-1(1), Baroda-391346. Baroda.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 147Section 148

September 19, 1990, there obviously was no opinion formed in that regard and, consequently, there would not arise any question of a mere change of opinion. In cases where the Assessing Officer had overlooked something at the first assessment, there can, in our opinion, be no question of any change ... statute and in case in earlier proceedings no such opinion is formed It cannot be contended that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on mere change of opinion. Mere assessment in routine manner did not lead to inference that the opinion was formed in respect of issues involved in the assessment

M/S.Va Tech Wabag Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 3(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 503/CHNY/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 41(1)Section 80ISection 80l

working of the computation of relief under sec 80IA and the present reworking of deduction u/s 80IA in the reassessment is nothing but mere change of opinion of the Assessing Authority on the same set of facts and hence the reopening is without jurisdiction. 2.4 The Commissioner of Income

M/S Ramani Timber Corporation, Trichy vs. ACIT-Circle-3(1), Trichy

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1476/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1476/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Ramani Timber Corporation Acit बनाम 3/132A. Tanjore Road, Opp.Udc Circle-3(1) / Vs. Kattur, Trichy-620 019. Trichy. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaefr-9407-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mrs. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 13-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-03-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] On 17-10-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act On 31-12-2018. This Is Second Round Of Litigation. Earlier, The Tribunal Vide Its Order In Ita No.125/Chny/2020 Dated 09-11-2021 Had Set Aside The Appeal To Ld. Cit(A) For Fresh Consideration. Pursuant To The Same, Impugned Order

For Appellant: Mrs. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 68

without any proper reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. b.The Ld AO erred in reopening the assessment is mere change of opinion and is without any tangible material to substantiate that income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment. c.The Ld AO has incorrectly assumed jurisdiction by initiating ... assailing the assumption of reassessment jurisdiction. It has been submitted that reopening was beyond 4 years and the case has been reopened on mere change of opinion without there being any tangible material on record. To support the same, Ld. AR drew our attention to the reasons recorded

Sai Builders and Developers, Vashi vs. PCIT-27, Vashi

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

ITA 1916/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalsaibuildersanddevelopers, Vs Pr.Cit-27, B12,Ashiana,Plotno.15, Roomno.401, Sector17,Vashi, 4Thflr,Towerno.6, Navi Mumbai-400703. Vashi Railway Stationcomplex,Vashi, Navimumbai-400703. Pan/Gir No. : Abbfs0092C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.K.Gopal&Shri.OmKandalkar.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Hiren M Bhatt. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

several details and after looking into the same has passed the assessment order dated 04.02.2021 under section 143(3) of the Act. Thus, mere change of opinion of the Ld. PCIT on the same set of facts won't make the assessment order dated 04.02.2021 erroneous and prejudicial

Vijay Pal, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 3033/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3033/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Vijay Pal, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-4(4), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Anvpp7279G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3031/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Raj Singh, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-3(3), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Bjdps1075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3032/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito Hariom, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-2(1), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Afuph1298A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 54B

position to form reasons to believe that some income of that particular AY has escaped assessment. This again cannot be based on a mere change of opinion. Further, in terms of Section 151 of the Act such a move will have to have the prior approval of the CIT. Under

Hariom, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 3032/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3033/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Vijay Pal, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-4(4), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Anvpp7279G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3031/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Raj Singh, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-3(3), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Bjdps1075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3032/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito Hariom, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-2(1), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Afuph1298A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 54B

position to form reasons to believe that some income of that particular AY has escaped assessment. This again cannot be based on a mere change of opinion. Further, in terms of Section 151 of the Act such a move will have to have the prior approval of the CIT. Under

Raj Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 3031/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3033/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Vijay Pal, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-4(4), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Anvpp7279G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3031/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Raj Singh, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-3(3), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Bjdps1075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3032/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito Hariom, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-2(1), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Afuph1298A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 54B

position to form reasons to believe that some income of that particular AY has escaped assessment. This again cannot be based on a mere change of opinion. Further, in terms of Section 151 of the Act such a move will have to have the prior approval of the CIT. Under

M/S. Nti Housing Co-Operative Society, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed

ITA 829/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 80P(2)(d)

necessary for its assessment in the recording of reasons, is not in terms of the provision of law. This is nothing but a mere change of opinion, particularly, in the absence of any fresh material available for reopening of a concluded assessment. Therefore, in such a completed proceeding, attempt

M/S. Nti Housing Co-Operative Society, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed

ITA 828/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 80P(2)(d)

necessary for its assessment in the recording of reasons, is not in terms of the provision of law. This is nothing but a mere change of opinion, particularly, in the absence of any fresh material available for reopening of a concluded assessment. Therefore, in such a completed proceeding, attempt

Nti Housing Co-Operative Society, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed

ITA 827/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 80P(2)(d)

necessary for its assessment in the recording of reasons, is not in terms of the provision of law. This is nothing but a mere change of opinion, particularly, in the absence of any fresh material available for reopening of a concluded assessment. Therefore, in such a completed proceeding, attempt

DCIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ecgc Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3813/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 234B

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

DCIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ecgc Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3812/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 234Section 234B

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

Ecgc Limited, Ecgc Bhawan vs. ACIT, New Marine Lines Mumbai

ITA 3551/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 234Section 234B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL