← 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

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Infratech Builders and Agro Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2362/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs Infratech Builders & Agro Pvt. Tax Central Circle 7(2), Ltd. Mumbai 216 Shah & Nahar Industrial E, Room No.655, 6Th Floor Dr. E Moses Road Worli Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Mumbai 400018, Maharashtra Mumbai, Mumbai India, Mumbai Pan: Aabci7392B Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. Dr (Virtually Appeared) Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawalthis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Cit(A),- 49, Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1072911991(1) Mumbai Vide Order Dated 04.02.2025 Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 13.12.2016 For A.Y. 2009-10. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are As Under: 1."On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Reopening Of The Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Infratech Builders & Agro Pvt. Ltd. A.Y.2009-10 Tax Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law Without Considering The Fact That The Assess Had Failed To Provide 1 The Details Of Payments Made To M/S. Bovis India Pvt. Ltd. & M/S. Bovis Lend Lease India Pvt. Ltd. & No Service Tax Was Charged On The Payments Made To These Companies, Unlike Other Similar Payments.”

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

same set of facts and material. 4.1. Case of the assessee is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT V. Kelvinator of India [2010] 320 ITR 501(SC) wherein it was held that Assessing Officer has no power to review assessment order under the shelter