← 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

Satyabir Singh Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result all the three appeals of the assessees are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 3022/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3024/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satya Pal, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aabpy6152A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3022/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satyabir Singh, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aacpy7890A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3023/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rati Ram, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aaopy3440Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellants ""थ"/ Respondents

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate; &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 253Section 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

Kala Ramesh Parmar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward- 23(2)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 581/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalekala Ramesh Parmar Ito Ward – 23(2)(6), 2/21,Kishorebuilding, Room No.303, बनाम/ Opp Edward Cinema, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 2Nd Floor, 521, Earnest House, Kalbadevi Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400002. Mumbai- 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadpp6229M (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri.Jitendra Singh.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Abhishek Kumar Singh, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 68

information which was available on record in the original assessment and no material was available to make reassessment and it is only a mere change of opinion. The Ld. AR has demonstrated the reasons recorded for the reopening of assessment at page 29 to 31 of the paper book. Further ... facts. If the Income- tax Officer draws an inference, which appears subsequently to be erroneous, it would amount to change of opinion and mere change of opinion with regard to that inference would not justify initiation of action for re-opening assessment. 32.2 The grounds or reasons which

Icici Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 158/MUM/2023[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit Cir 3(1) Vs. Icici Bank Ltd. Room No. 607, 6 Th Floor, Icici Towers, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Icici Bank Ltd. Vs. Dcit Cir. 2(3)(1) Icici Towers, North East Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Wing, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bkc, Bandra(E) Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Aarti Visanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri. K.C. Selvamani, Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri. K.C. Selvamani, DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 33Section 47

same. b. 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 as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India

DCIT, CC-2(2), Mum vs. Shri Narendra S Shah, Mumbai

ITA 2566/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the 4. Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the impugned acion is mere change of opinion. impugned acion is mere change of opinion. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 5. Without

DCIT, CC-2(2), Mum vs. Shri Narendra S Shah, Mum

ITA 2315/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the 4. Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the impugned acion is mere change of opinion. impugned acion is mere change of opinion. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 5. Without

Shri Narendra S Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Mumbai

ITA 2007/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the 4. Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the impugned acion is mere change of opinion. impugned acion is mere change of opinion. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 5. Without

Shri Narendra S Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 2006/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the 4. Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the impugned acion is mere change of opinion. impugned acion is mere change of opinion. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 5. Without

Shri Narendra S Shah, Mum vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Mum

ITA 2005/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the 4. Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the impugned acion is mere change of opinion. impugned acion is mere change of opinion. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 5. Without

Shri Narendra S Shah, Mum vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Mum

ITA 2004/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the 4. Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the impugned acion is mere change of opinion. impugned acion is mere change of opinion. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 5. Without

Shri Narendra S Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cen Cir-(2), Mumbai

ITA 2003/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the 4. Since the assessee has already disclosed this fact the impugned acion is mere change of opinion. impugned acion is mere change of opinion. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 2004/M/2004, 2566 & 2315/M/2022 5. Without

The DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 5765/MUM/2008[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit Cir 3(1) Vs. Icici Bank Ltd. Room No. 607, 6 Th Floor, Icici Towers, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Icici Bank Ltd. Vs. Dcit Cir. 2(3)(1) Icici Towers, North East Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Wing, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bkc, Bandra(E) Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Aarti Visanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri. K.C. Selvamani, Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri. K.C. Selvamani, DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 33Section 47

same. b. 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 as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India

Puri Oil Mills Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-20(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7726/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 44A

have erred both on facts and in Law to have uphold the orders of the Assessing Officer initiating the reassessment proceedings on mere change of opinion and on review subsequently of a completed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on the same primary and material facts as stood categorically ... said being part of the records and proceedings in original assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act on mere change of opinion and review of the completed assessment, which is impermissible in law. 3. That the worthy CIT(A) was also wrong, unjustified and have erred both on facts

Puri Oil Mills Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 20(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6971/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 44A

have erred both on facts and in Law to have uphold the orders of the Assessing Officer initiating the reassessment proceedings on mere change of opinion and on review subsequently of a completed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on the same primary and material facts as stood categorically ... said being part of the records and proceedings in original assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act on mere change of opinion and review of the completed assessment, which is impermissible in law. 3. That the worthy CIT(A) was also wrong, unjustified and have erred both on facts

Jt. CIT (Ods) - CC -1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

brought on - record evidencing escapement of income, Reassessment based on same set of facts as existing - in the original assessment, is nothing but mere change of opinion which is not permitted Review of own assessment order is not permissible in - the reassessment proceedings Reassessment proceedings based on audit objection ... considered view that there is no merit in the contention of the assessee that reopening is made on the basis of mere change of opinion. Though the assessee has relied upon a plethora of judgments in support of its arguments, all the judgments referred to by the assessee are rendered

Ultra Tech Cement Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT- CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 220/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

brought on - record evidencing escapement of income, Reassessment based on same set of facts as existing - in the original assessment, is nothing but mere change of opinion which is not permitted Review of own assessment order is not permissible in - the reassessment proceedings Reassessment proceedings based on audit objection ... considered view that there is no merit in the contention of the assessee that reopening is made on the basis of mere change of opinion. Though the assessee has relied upon a plethora of judgments in support of its arguments, all the judgments referred to by the assessee are rendered

M/S Kepco Plant Service & Engineering Co Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-(It), Mumbai

ITA 1030/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripurari
Section 143(3)Section 263

No.1056/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) 1.4. That the assumption of jurisdiction by Ld. CIT under section 263 of the Act tantamount to a mere change of opinion by Ld. CIT based on surmises and conjectures, and hence, the impugned Revision Order is bad in law, illegal and ultra vires

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1789/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

brought on - record evidencing escapement of income, Reassessment based on same set of facts as existing - in the original assessment, is nothing but mere change of opinion which is not permitted Review of own assessment order is not permissible in - the reassessment proceedings Reassessment proceedings based on audit objection ... considered view that there is no merit in the contention of the assessee that reopening is made on the basis of mere change of opinion. Though the assessee has relied upon a plethora of judgments in support of its arguments, all the judgments referred to by the assessee are rendered

M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent Cir-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1466/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

brought on - record evidencing escapement of income, Reassessment based on same set of facts as existing - in the original assessment, is nothing but mere change of opinion which is not permitted Review of own assessment order is not permissible in - the reassessment proceedings Reassessment proceedings based on audit objection ... considered view that there is no merit in the contention of the assessee that reopening is made on the basis of mere change of opinion. Though the assessee has relied upon a plethora of judgments in support of its arguments, all the judgments referred to by the assessee are rendered

Aj Energy Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1190/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manvendra Goel, CIT(DR)
Section 142(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

liable to be quashed as the same has been reopened on the basis of the reasons which are mere change of opinion as the issue was already examined during the course of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S Rajasthan State Road Development & Construction Corporation Ltd., Setu Bhawan, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

regarding escapement of income was based on re- appreciation of material already available on record at time of scrutiny assessment which amounted to mere change of opinion. Reopening of completed assessment without any fresh material, merely on basis of change of opinion of AO was without jurisdiction & patently illegal