← All Phrases

“Kelvinator”

Judicial DoctrinesKelvinator - 147Kelvinator - 147924 judgments

The decision most relied on for Kelvinator is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Kelvinator

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.

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.

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. 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.

New Delhi Television Ltd. v. DCIT
116 Taxmann.com 151 · 2020 · Supreme Court
139
citing judgments

Reassessment initiated under Section 147/148 is invalid if the Assessing Officer relies on material obtained post-recording of reasons, or if it amounts to a mere change of opinion on facts fully and truly disclosed by the assessee during the original assessment. An assessee's obligation extends only to the full and true disclosure of primary facts, not to provide further assistance or inferences.

Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
301 ITR 407 · 2008 · High Court
107
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer is considered to have applied their mind and formed an opinion on an issue if the assessee fully disclosed all material facts and responded to queries during the original assessment, even without explicit discussion in the assessment order. Reopening an assessment beyond four years on such an issue without new tangible material constitutes a mere change of opinion and is impermissible under Section 147.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5 v. Shodiman Investments (P.) Ltd.
422 ITR 337 · 2020 · High Court
84
citing judgments

Reassessment cannot be initiated on "borrowed satisfaction"; the Assessing Officer must independently apply their mind to tangible material to form a reasonable belief that income has escaped assessment. The sanctioning authority under Section 151 must also apply its mind to the recorded reasons before granting approval.

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Additional Director of Income Tax
292 ITR 49 · 2007 · High Court
78
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated based on a mere change of opinion or reappraisal of existing facts, but require new or fresh tangible material or information indicating escapement of income.

Judgments citing Kelvinator

Samtel India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 22(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7101/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalasst. Cit, Samtel India Limited, Circle-22(1), 501, Copia Corporate Vs. New Delhi. Suites, District Centre Jasola, New Delhi-110025 Pan-Aaacs0390N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri D.C. Garg, Ca Department By Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/02/2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Is Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, New Delhi (“The Cit(A)” For Short) In Appeal No.32/13-14 Dated 27/01/2015 For Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi, Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case In Upholding Action Of The Assessing Officer In Reopening The Assessment Under Samtel India Ltd. Vs. Acit

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 37

mere change of opinion which cannot per se reason to reopen the concluded assessment. For this reliance is placed on the following: - CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. Reported in (2010) 187 TAXMANN 312 (SC) - Global Signal Cables (India) Ltd. Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT reported ... available with the AO at the time of original assessment is not permissible. The Hon’ble Apex court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd (supra) has laid down that “ the assessing officer has no power to review; he has the power to re-assess

DCIT(Central)-1, Raipur vs. Kalmesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 138/RPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

Siemens Energy Industrial Turbo India (P) Ltd (2024) (Bom HC); Mira Bhavin Mehta (2024) (Bom HC); Godrej Projects Development (P) Ltd (2024) (Born HC); Kelvinator (2010) (SC); Marico Ltd (2020) (SC); Techspan India PL (2018) (SC); Usha International Ltd (2012) (Del HC) (Full Bench). 2. On the facts and circumstances ... support of his aforesaid contention had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Limited reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC). Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the original assessment in the case of the assessee

DCIT(Central)-1, Raipur vs. Kalmesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 136/RPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

Siemens Energy Industrial Turbo India (P) Ltd (2024) (Bom HC); Mira Bhavin Mehta (2024) (Bom HC); Godrej Projects Development (P) Ltd (2024) (Born HC); Kelvinator (2010) (SC); Marico Ltd (2020) (SC); Techspan India PL (2018) (SC); Usha International Ltd (2012) (Del HC) (Full Bench). 2. On the facts and circumstances ... support of his aforesaid contention had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Limited reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC). Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the original assessment in the case of the assessee

DCIT(Central)-1, Raipur vs. Kalmesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 135/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

Siemens Energy Industrial Turbo India (P) Ltd (2024) (Bom HC); Mira Bhavin Mehta (2024) (Bom HC); Godrej Projects Development (P) Ltd (2024) (Born HC); Kelvinator (2010) (SC); Marico Ltd (2020) (SC); Techspan India PL (2018) (SC); Usha International Ltd (2012) (Del HC) (Full Bench). 2. On the facts and circumstances ... support of his aforesaid contention had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Limited reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC). Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the original assessment in the case of the assessee

Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 124/RPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

Siemens Energy Industrial Turbo India (P) Ltd (2024) (Bom HC); Mira Bhavin Mehta (2024) (Bom HC); Godrej Projects Development (P) Ltd (2024) (Born HC); Kelvinator (2010) (SC); Marico Ltd (2020) (SC); Techspan India PL (2018) (SC); Usha International Ltd (2012) (Del HC) (Full Bench). 2. On the facts and circumstances ... support of his aforesaid contention had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Limited reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC). Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the original assessment in the case of the assessee

Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 123/RPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

Siemens Energy Industrial Turbo India (P) Ltd (2024) (Bom HC); Mira Bhavin Mehta (2024) (Bom HC); Godrej Projects Development (P) Ltd (2024) (Born HC); Kelvinator (2010) (SC); Marico Ltd (2020) (SC); Techspan India PL (2018) (SC); Usha International Ltd (2012) (Del HC) (Full Bench). 2. On the facts and circumstances ... support of his aforesaid contention had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Limited reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC). Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the original assessment in the case of the assessee

Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 122/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

Siemens Energy Industrial Turbo India (P) Ltd (2024) (Bom HC); Mira Bhavin Mehta (2024) (Bom HC); Godrej Projects Development (P) Ltd (2024) (Born HC); Kelvinator (2010) (SC); Marico Ltd (2020) (SC); Techspan India PL (2018) (SC); Usha International Ltd (2012) (Del HC) (Full Bench). 2. On the facts and circumstances ... support of his aforesaid contention had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Limited reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC). Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the original assessment in the case of the assessee