← All Phrases

“Kelvinator”

Judicial DoctrinesKelvinator - 147Kelvinator - 147924 judgments

CHHABI LATA SAHU,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, ROURKELA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 626/CTK/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Chhabi Lata Sahu Ito, Ward-4, Rourkela

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Sarangi & Bishwa Jyoti Pattnaik, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 148

decisions and the legislative changes has been summarized succinctly by the Supreme Court of India in Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. Kelvinator of India Limited (2010) 2 SCC 723 as under: “6. On going through the changes, quoted above, made to Section 147 of the Act, we find that

GRANULES INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1289/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.1289/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Granules India Limited Vs. Dcit- Circle -2(1) 15Th Floor, Granules Tower Signature Tower, Botanical Garden Road Sy. No. 6(P) Of Kondaput Kondapur, Hyderabad – 500084 Sy. No. 37 Of Kothaguda Telangana Opp. Botanical Gardens Serilingampalluy, R.R. District Pan: Aaacg7369K Hyderabad-500084, Telangana (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

also taking note of the certain judicial pronouncements including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator. India (2010) 187 taxmann.com 312, rejected the legal grounds taken by the assessee challenging validity of the reopening of the assessment by holding that the arguments ... this regard, he relied upon certain judicial pronouncements including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., [320 ITR 561 (SC)]. The appellant had also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian

EAST DELHI LEASING P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7917/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2010-11
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

{ "clean_text": "ITA No. 7917/Del/2019\n\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH ‘F': NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI S

INFINITY INTERNATIONAL,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURIS. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 518/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalinfinity International, Nfac, Delhi Vs. H-611, Titanium City Centre, Present Jurisdiction 100 Ft. Anandnagar Road, Ito, Ward 3(3)(1), Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Ahmedabad [Pan: Aaefi 2610 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Ukti Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153(3)Section 250Section 68

case not only for prima facie cause but also to prove sufficiency of material. j. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Limited in Civil Appeal Nos. 2009-2011 of 2003 emphasized on the test of tangible material and live-link has been duly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. OASYS CYBERMATICS PVT LTD, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3102/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mr. ARV Srinivasan, CIT for Mr. Bipin C. N., CITFor Respondent: Mr. Ravi Kannan &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)Section 5(3)

amounted to review of the earlier assessment which is impermissible in law, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 SC. In view of the said judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, the CIT(A) held that

STARSHINE LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI-5, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2148/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 148Section 23(5)Section 263

Developments Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT[ITA No.4277/Mum/2012] The Ld. AR further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India 3 Starshine Land Developers Private Limited Ltd.(320 ITR 561) and the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Marico ... enquiry, the Commissioner is justified in invoking section 263. 5 Starshine Land Developers Private Limited 10. The reliance placed by the Ld. AR on Kelvinator of India Ltd. and Marico Ltd. is misplaced. Those decisions deal with the scope of reopening and change of opinion. The present controversy

VIRCHOW PETROCHEMICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1191/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2026AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nShri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: \nMs. U. Mini Chandran
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

drawing support from the\nlandmark judgment of the “Full bench” of the Hon'ble High Court of\nDelhi in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del)\n[which thereafter had been approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT\nVs. Kelvinator of India ... relevant and\nwhich was available on record. Relying on the observations of the “Full\nbench" of the High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.\n(supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT\n(supra), had observed that where according

MARK STEELS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2603/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

merely a change of opinion and directly in conflict with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in having upheld the reassessment order u/s 147/143

BANGALORE UNION SERVICES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2483/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (by Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 2(22)(e)

validity of the re-assessment proceedings, ld.AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited reported in 320 ITR 561. 11. Further, the ld. AR, at the outset, submitted that the assessee had duly filed its return ... jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, Ground no.1 to 5 raised by the assessee are allowed. 16. In the case of CIT vs Kelvinator of India Limited (supra), cited by the ld.AR for the assessee, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that after the amendment made

MEENA JEWELS AND PEARLS,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1225/HYD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2010-11
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

from the end of the assessment year under consideration. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions: i. CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii. DCIT vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., [2021] 125 taxmann.com 71 (SC) iii. PCIT

DCIT-19(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NIMESH PRAVINCHANDRA MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8102/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 69C

Group, was the exact same material considered\nduring the original scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3). The\nHon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR\n561) held that \"reason to believe\" cannot be a \"reason to suspect" or\na mere \"change of opinion.\" Reopening

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4321/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

eyes of law. 3.5. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 521, where it held that- “Though the power to reopen under the amended s. 147 is much wider, one needs

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4320/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

eyes of law. 3.5. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 521, where it held that- “Though the power to reopen under the amended s. 147 is much wider, one needs

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4319/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

eyes of law. 3.5. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 521, where it held that- “Though the power to reopen under the amended s. 147 is much wider, one needs

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4318/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

eyes of law. 3.5. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 521, where it held that- “Though the power to reopen under the amended s. 147 is much wider, one needs

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 4090/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

eyes of\nlaw.\n3.5. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 521,\nwhere it held that-\n“Though the power to reopen under the amended s. 147 is much wider, one needs

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4064/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

eyes of\nlaw.\n3.5. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 521,\nwhere it held that-\n“Though the power to reopen under the amended s. 147 is much wider, one needs

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -6 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4045/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

eyes of law. 3.5. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 521, where it held that- “Though the power to reopen under the amended s. 147 is much wider, one needs

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4044/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

eyes of law. 3.5. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 521, where it held that- “Though the power to reopen under the amended s. 147 is much wider, one needs

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4043/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

eyes of law. 3.5. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 521, where it held that- “Though the power to reopen under the amended s. 147 is much wider, one needs

Showing 1–20 of 924 · Page 1 of 47

...