← 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

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 182/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

permissible in law. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 560 (SC). 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further invited our attention to the reasons recorded

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 181/PAT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

permissible in law. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 560 (SC). 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further invited our attention to the reasons recorded

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 180/PAT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

permissible in law. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 560 (SC). 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further invited our attention to the reasons recorded

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 179/PAT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

permissible in law. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 560 (SC). 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further invited our attention to the reasons recorded

Jugal Chandra Saikia, Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Guwahati

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 259/GTY/2018[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati27 Jan 2025AY 1993-94

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143Section 250Section 254

records and examine the reason, as recorded on 30/05/2001 u/s 148(2), to see whether the learned AO had any 'tangible material' (CIT v Kelvinator India Limited ([2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC): At Page No. 564 to 565, paragraph 6 & 7) to have a 'cause' or 'justification' to form

Jugal Chandra Saikia, Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Guwahati

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 258/GTY/2018[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati27 Jan 2025AY 1992-93

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143Section 250Section 254

records and examine the reason, as recorded on 30/05/2001 u/s 148(2), to see whether the learned AO had any 'tangible material' (CIT v Kelvinator India Limited ([2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC): At Page No. 564 to 565, paragraph 6 & 7) to have a 'cause' or 'justification' to form

M/S. Larsen & Tourbro Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2) & 5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1010/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of L&T House, Income Tax, N.M. Marg, Vs. Central Circle-5(4), Ballard Estate, Fort, [Erstwhile Income Tax Officer-2(2), Mumbai] Mumbai 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Pan : Aaacl0140P Nariman Point, Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

would warrant such an intervention. We may take support from the decision rendered by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010)(320 ITR 561), wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as under:- “Hence, after 1.4.1989, Assessing Officer has power to reopen

Mack Star Marketing Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4994/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yash VarmaniFor Respondent: Mr. R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147

reopened within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Further we know that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 held the concept of change opinion is an inbuilt test check on abuse of power of the Assessing ... applied over the facts of the instant case. 8.5 Thus, respectfully following the finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd(supra), we hold that reopening based on the change of opinion without there being any tangible material, is not permitted

Rahul Bajpai, Idgah Chowk vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Shri Ram Plaza

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 348/RPR/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.348/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rahul Bajpai Idgah Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Aexpb4410L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

change of opinion”, therefore, the same in the backdrop of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down on the said count itself ... mere “change of opinion, which in the backdrop of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) cannot be sustained. 14. Per contra, Shri S.L Anuragi, Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘CIT-DR’) relied

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Alcom Investment Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 16/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 45

mind to reopen the case. The Ld. Counsel cited a decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator (320 ITR 561), decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (325 ITR 285), Sarthak Securities ... making due inquiries, goes ahead to reopen. 13. We have gone through the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator (supra) and find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus: “Prior to the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, reopening could be done

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi), Mumbai

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

ITA 935/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

Section 1Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 115BSection 12ASection 147Section 153Section 80G

taken for reopening an assessment even if the information is wholly vague, indefinite, far-fetched or remote. 12. In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator of Income-tax &Anr. (supra) the Supreme Court observed as under:- “However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe ... review of the earlier proceedings and an abuse of power by the Assessing Officer, both strongly deprecated by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator (supra). The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer in the present case do confirm our apprehension about the harm that a less strict interpretation

Shree Sai Baba Santhan Trust Mumbai, Mumbai vs. DCIT(Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 932/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

Section 1Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 115BSection 12ASection 147Section 153Section 80G

taken for reopening an assessment even if the information is wholly vague, indefinite, far-fetched or remote. 12. In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator of Income-tax &Anr. (supra) the Supreme Court observed as under:- “However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe ... review of the earlier proceedings and an abuse of power by the Assessing Officer, both strongly deprecated by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator (supra). The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer in the present case do confirm our apprehension about the harm that a less strict interpretation

Murali Krishna Yenugula, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2347/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54F

against re-opening of assessment be allowed by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Limited reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) wherein it was held that the AO has no power to review and the power ... decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while endorsing the Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) held in its order reported in 320 ITR 561, “…..that Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is “tangible material

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune vs. The Shetkari Shikshan Mandal, Pune

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

ITA 1182/PUN/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jan 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 11Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

escaped assessment. Since the assessment has been re-opened after duly recording the reasons by the AO, the assessment is on sound grounds. In Kelvinator of India [2010] 187 Taxman 312 (SC), the Hon Supreme Court held that u/s 147, the AO has power to re-assess

Mustasq Ahmad, Chennai vs. ITO, Intl Tax Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1351/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1351/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-2014. Mustaq Ahmad, The Income Tax Officer, No.160, Mustafa Centre, Vs. International Taxation, Usman Road, Ward 1(1) T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 017. Pan: Adepa 1181B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Lekha, C.A, ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. Nilay Baran Som, Cit. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Chennai-16 [‘Cit(A)’ Short] Dated 27.09.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Five (5) Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Counsel For The Assessee Has Vehemently Pressed A Ground No.2 That There Was No Fresh Material On Which The Ao Has Issued Notice Dated 31.03.2021 U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ In Short). G.No.2 Is As Under: ‘’2. At The Outset, The Ao Has No Jurisdiction To Reopen The Assessment, As All The Material Facts Were With The Ao Even At The Time Of Completing The Original Assessment & There Was No Fresh Material On Which The Ao Has Issued Notice. The Notice Issued By The Ao U/S.148 Of The Act Is Ab Initio Void & On This Ground Alone The Reassessment Deserves To Be Cancelled’’.

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

parameters required for re-opening a concluded assessment under Section 147 of the Act in the case of (Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Limited) reported in (2010) 187 Taxman 312 (SC) wherein it has been observed as under:- "4. On going through the changes, quoted above ... costs. 9. When we apply the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Limited) reported in (2010) 187 Taxman 312 (SC) and Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax - I Tiruchirapalli. Vs M/s.Trichy Steel

Minal Shroff, Rs Puram Tamilnadu vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward -2(3), Coimbatore

ITA 2424/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Mr.S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(40)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNΑΙ श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 3(4) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. The Shipping Corporation of India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed and that of the

ITA 1970/MUM/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Neha Vikam, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

recorded are merely re-appreciation of the material already available on record. ii. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Kelvinator of India Ltd [2010] 187 Taxman 312 (SC)(order dt. 18-01-2010) has held that when a regular order of assessment is passed

The Shipping Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed and that of the

ITA 1752/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Neha Vikam, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

recorded are merely re-appreciation of the material already available on record. ii. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Kelvinator of India Ltd [2010] 187 Taxman 312 (SC)(order dt. 18-01-2010) has held that when a regular order of assessment is passed

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt

ITA 93/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklastaal 3H Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 Frefzor Af /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

assessee placed his reliance upon catena of judicial pronouncements including the one pronounced by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kelvinator of India 328 ITR 561 (SC). The Ld. Counsel had contended that reassessment of any proceedings on the basis of change of opinion is not permissible ... thus emanating from above mentioned statutory provisions as well as_ the judicial pronouncements, principally led by Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision of Kelvinator of India is that no Page - 8 - of 70 ITA No.86 & 13 others /Chny/2018 nO-: action u/s 148 can be taken on the basis

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

ITA 92/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

For Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

assessee placed his reliance upon catena of judicial pronouncements including the one pronounced by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kelvinator of India 328 ITR 561 (SC). The Ld. Counsel had contended that reassessment of any proceedings on the basis of change of opinion is not permissible ... thus emanating from above mentioned statutory provisions as well as the judicial pronouncements, principally led by Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision of Kelvinator of India is that no Page - 8 - of 70 ITA No.86 & 13 others /Chny/2018 :- 9 -: action u/s 148 can be taken on the basis