“mere change of opinion”

ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Asian Paints Ltd. vs. DCIT (2009) 308 ITR 195, to contest that mere change of opinion cannot allow the learned Assessing Officer to reopen the concluded assessment. He referred to Para no. 10 of that decision to support

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments ITA No. 1315/Mum/2018 Assessment year: 2010-11 Page 9 of 10 on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power

Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Additional Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Range-II(Now Assessed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments ITA No. 1315/Mum/2018 Assessment year: 2010-11 Page 9 of 10 on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power

ACIT - 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. (No Merged With Hdfc Bank Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

opened by the present AO on the very same issue, therefore he held the action of the AO to reopen as mere “change of opinion” and therefore relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) quashed the reopening ... have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, but this does not imply that the AO can reopen an assessment on mere change of opinion. The concept of “change of opinion” must be treated as an in-built test to check the abuse of power by the AO. Hence

Upal Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the asses

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Upal Developers Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of Market City Resources Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-8, Second Floor, R.R. Hosiery Bldg. Vs. Mumbai. Shree Laxmi Woolen Mills Estate, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacu 7953 K Appellant Respondent

Bombay High Court holding that reasons recorded by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court holding that reasons recorded were based on mere change of opinion. Sim were based on mere change of opinion. Similarly, in assessment year in assessment year 2013-14 also reopening was 14 also reopening was quashed

Bombay Real Estate Development Co. P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-1(1)-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

required to have „reason to believe‟ that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In present case, reassessment proceedings are nothing but mere change of opinion by Assessing Officer with regards to material already available on record and considered during the course of original scrutiny assessment proceedings. That ... taken by the Assessing Officer he should substantiate his satisfaction. Thus, where the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer disclose no more than mere change of opinion, the reassessment proceedings and assessment order pursuant thereto are liable to be quashed. Existence of a valid "reason to believe" is a sine

ACIT 4 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Securities Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

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 ITA. No. 7357/Mum/2019 Assessment Year ... 7357/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 settled principle of law that an assessment cannot be reopened on the basis of a mere change of opinion. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the Assessing Officer has no power to review, but his power is a power to reassess. If a mere change

Sunil Khanna, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 28(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

required to have „reason to believe‟ that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In present case, reassessment proceedings are nothing but mere change of opinion by Assessing Officer Sunil H. Khanna ITA Nos. 3415/Mum./2019 and 3868/Mum./2019 with regards to material already available on record and considered during ... taken by the Assessing Officer he should substantiate his satisfaction. Thus, where the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer disclose no more than mere change of opinion, the reassessment proceedings and assessment order pursuant thereto are liable to be quashed. Existence of a valid "reason to believe" is a sine

Dy CIT CC 4(1), Mumbai vs. M/S R S Associates, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the assessee appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc – 4(1) Vs. M/S. R.S. Associates Room No. 1918, Commerz, 3Rd Floor, 19Th Floor, Air India Business Park, Bldg, Nariman Point, Oberoi Gardens City, Mumbai – 400 021. Goregaon (E) Mumbai – 400063 Pan/Gir No. : Aaafr2426H Appellant .. Respondent M/S. R.S. Associates Vs. Dcit, Cc – 4(1) Commersz,3Rd Floor, Room No. 1918, Business Park, 19Th Floor, Air India Oberoi Gardens City, Bldg, Nariman Point, Goregaon (E) Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400063 Pan/Gir No. : Aaafr2426H Appellant .. Respondent Assesse By : Mr.Vijay Mehta.Ar Revenue By : Mr.T.Sankar.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Cross Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of

facts and relying on the same set of material which was available with the A.O. in the original assessment proceedings and is a mere change of opinion. The Ld. AR restricted his submissions to the extent of validity of reassessment proceedings and substantiated the arguments/ submissions with the paper book

Strides Pharma Science Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. The DCIT 15(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd., reported in 320 ITR 561 wherein it was held that reassessment cannot be made on mere change of opinion and the ld. AO cannot be given a second innings to review the same set of facts in the guise of reopening

Hsbc Asset Management (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.1 raised by assessee is allowed and assessment order framed found to be without jurisdiction

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalhsbc Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Mercantile Bank Chamber, 16 Veer Nariman, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aabch0007N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-1(1)(2) Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Niraj Sheth, Ar Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 13.10.2017 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: The Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Distinct & Separate & Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. On The Facts & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 6, Mumbai [‘Cit(A)’] Erred In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Initiated After Four Years From The End Of Relevant Assessment Year, Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Made & The Appellant Had Disclosed Fully & Truly All Material Facts Necessary

January 29, 2015. We have noted the said reasons and hereby submit our objections to them in the following paragraphs: I. Reasons reflect mere change of opinion: (a) We would like to state that, the reopening is based on same set of facts/ material available on record for the year ... clear that section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon mere change of opinion.” 6 (e) The aforesaid decision in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator has now been affirmed by the Supreme Court (320 ITR 561) with

Areen Consultants P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 10(3), Mumbai

aside on the issue of jurisdiction as well on merits. He submitted that the reassessment proceedings have been initiated on account of mere change of opinion and without having any tangible material. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant took us through the documents forming part of paper book including ... lower authorities. He submitted that the reassessment proceedings have been initiated on the basis of tangible material and not on account of mere change of opinion. In this regard, the Ld. Departmental Representative referred to the reasons recorded and submitted that the Assessing Officer had relied upon assessment order

The Tata Power Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Mumbai

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

appeals: “1. The learned Pr. CIT has erred in law and in facts by initiating proceedings u/s 263 of the Act on a mere change of opinion and subsequently passing the Order u/s 263 of the Act without considering the fact that the Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C

ACIT -1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tilaknagar Idustries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for AY

power of AO to reopen u/s 1417 is much wider, however, the AO has not jurisdiction to reopen assessment on the basis of mere change of opinion. Power u/s 147 of the Act can be exercised by the AO provided there is tangible material to come to conclusion that there