How many judgments cite CIT v. Sun Beam Auto?

22 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Sun Beam Auto (227 CTR 113), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Sun Beam Auto come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 135, Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 144B, Section 37(1).

CIT v. Sun Beam Auto

227 CTR 113High Court#5313 most cited

What is CIT v. Sun Beam Auto authority for?

A revision order under section 263 is valid only if the original assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, and the distinction between a lack of inquiry and an inadequate inquiry is material to this determination.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sun Beam Auto · section 263 · revisionary power · erroneous order · prejudicial to revenue · lack of inquiry · inadequate inquiry · assessment order · Commissioner of Income-tax · Assessing Officer

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 135 Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 37(1)Section 80G Section 10(38)

Issues it is cited on

section 80g(2)(a)section 80g(1)section 80g(2)section 135 csr expenditure section 30 principal commissioner of income-tax application of income malabar industrial change of opinion gross total income revenue expenditure

Judgments citing CIT v. Sun Beam Auto

MR. ANMOL GOVINDRAM SEKHRI,BANDRA ARCADE, NANDI GULLY, OPP BANDRA RAILWAY ST vs. CIRCLE 16(2), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarmrs. Suneeta Sekhri V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of (Legal Heir Of Mr. Anmol बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 16(2), Govindram Sekhri), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – Ground Floor, Bandra Arcade, 400020, Maharashtra Nandi Gully, Opp. Bandra Railway Station, Bandra(West), Mumbai – 400 050, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Alhps9957L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ajgaonkar & Ms. Rupal Shrimal, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (CIT-DR)

Section 144BSection 147Section 263Section 68

…cause the first requirement, viz., that the order is erroneous, is absent." (Emphasis supplied) 5.3 Apart from the above principles, we deem it appropriate to make reference to the decision of the hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto 227 CTR 113 wherein the Court has pointed out a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. The following observations are worth noting: "12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have gone through the records. The first issue that arises for our consideration is about the exercise of power by the Commi…

BHARAT SERUMS AND VACCINES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2780/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarbharat Serums & V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Vaccines Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 15(1)(2), 3Rd Floor, Liberty Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – Airoli, Navi Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra 400708, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacb2431M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Mundra,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (Sr.DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…cause the first requirement, viz., that the order is erroneous, is absent." (Emphasis supplied) 7.3 Apart from the above principles, we deem it appropriate to make reference to the decision of the hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto 227 CTR 113 wherein the Court has pointed out a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. The following observations are worth noting: "12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have gone through the records. The first issue that arises for our consideration is about the exercise of power by the Comm…

TOWNSHIP REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3303/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankartownship Real Estate V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Developers Private Limited, बनाम Income Tax– 6, Room No. C-62, Vibgyor Tower, Bandra 501, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Kurla Complex, Bandra - East, Bhawan, Maharishi Karve Mumbai –400 051, Maharashtra Road, Mumbai–400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabct7356E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Nishith Khatri, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80G

…cause the first requirement, viz., that the order is erroneous, is absent." (Emphasis supplied) 6.2 Apart from the above principles, we deem it appropriate to make reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto 227 CTR 113 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has pointed out a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. The following observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court are worth noting: "12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have gone through the records. The first issue that arises for our considerati…

M/S ENAM ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-3, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of\nappeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2756/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: \nShri Dharan Gandhi,ARFor Respondent: \nShri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)

Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

…e\nthe first requirement, viz., that the order is erroneous, is absent.\" (Emphasis supplied)\n7.2 Apart from the above principles, we deem it appropriate to\nmake reference to the decision of the hon'ble Delhi High Court in the\ncase of CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto 227 CTR 113 wherein the Court has\nPage | 9\nITA No. 2079/Mum/2025\nΑ.Υ. 2020-21\nM/s Enam Asset Management Pvt. Ltd.\npointed out a distinction between lack of inquiry and\ninadequate inquiry. The following observations are worth noting:\n\"12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have gone\nthrough the records. The…

EMAIL PHARMACEUICAL INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-4 , MUMBAI

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

ITA 2079/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S Emil Pharmaceutical V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Industries Pvt. Ltd. बनाम Income Tax-4 101, Mangalam, Kulupwadi Room No. 629, Aayakar Road, Borivali East, Mumbai Bhawan, Maharishi Karve –400101, Maharashtra Road, Mumbai–400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace0922A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Anil Thakrar, CA (Virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

…ause the first requirement, viz., that the order is erroneous, is absent." (Emphasis supplied) 5.3 Apart from the above principles, we deem it appropriate to make reference to the decision of the hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto 227 CTR 113 wherein the Court has pointed out a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. The following observations of the hon'ble Court are worth noting: "12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have gone through the records. The first issue that arises for our consideration is about the exercise…

CORAL INDIA FINANCE & HOUSING LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby\nallowed

ITA 2496/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: \nShri V K Ginde, ARFor Respondent: \nShri R A Dhyani, (CIT-DR)

Section 135Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)(a)

…e\nthe first requirement, viz., that the order is erroneous, is absent.\" (Emphasis supplied)\n8.2 Apart from the above principles, we deem it appropriate to\nmake reference to the decision of the hon'ble Delhi High Court in the\ncase of CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto 227 CTR 113 wherein the hon'ble\nHigh Court has pointed out a distinction between ‘lack of inquiry' and\n'inadequate inquiry'. The following observations of the Hon'ble Delhi\nHigh Court are worth noting:\n\"12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have gone\nthrough the records. The first issue that arises for our co…

LIVLONG INSURANCE BROKERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -4 , MUMBAI

ITA 2864/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: \nShri Pritesh Mehta,ARFor Respondent: \nShri Aditya Rai, (Sr. DR)

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 80G

…se the first requirement, viz., that the order is\nerroneous, is absent.\" (Emphasis supplied)\n5.1Apart from the above principles, we deem it appropriate to\nmake reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the\ncase of CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto 227 CTR 113 wherein the Hon'ble\nHigh Court has pointed out a distinction between lack of inquiry and\ninadequate inquiry. The following observations of the Hon'ble Delhi\nHigh Court are worth noting:\n\"12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and\nhave gone through the records. The first issue that arises for our consid…

AAMIR KHAN PRODUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT-8, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2612/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Section 135Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

…se the first requirement, viz., that the order is erroneous, is absent.\" (Emphasis supplied)\n7.2 Apart from the above principles, we deem it appropriate to\nmake reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the\ncase of CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto 227 CTR 113 wherein the Hon'ble\nHigh Court has pointed out a distinction between lack of inquiry\nand inadequate inquiry. The following observations of the Hon'ble\nDelhi High Court are worth noting:\n\"12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have gone\nthrough the records. The first issue that arises for our consid…

SHRI LOKENDRA PANWAR,INDORE vs. THE PCIT (1) , INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Lokendra Panwar Pcit (1) 8 B Chandra Nagar, A.B. Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Achpp2073R Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 31.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.12.2023

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57(1)

…the AO has conducted an inquiry and taken a consistent view as taken in the preceding years then the Pr. CIT cannot be allowed to invoke provisions of section 263. In support of his contention he has relied upon following decisions: (i) CIT vs. SunBeam Auto 227 CTR 113 (Delhi HC) Page 4 of 15 ITANo.185/Ind/2023 Lokendra Panwar (ii) Reliance Money Infrastructure Ltd vs. Pr. CIT 51CCH0166(ITAT Mumbai) (iii) ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd (ITA 179/2011 (Delhi HC) (iv) (iv) DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation 267/2013 (Delhi HC) (v) (v) CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers 270 ITR 157 (M.P.) Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that the im…

AC CONSTRUCTION,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, Grounds No

ITA 374/KOL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 194CSection 40

…simply because in his order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.11. Apart from the above principles, we deem it appropriate to make reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto reported in 227 CTR 113 and Gee Vee Enterprises Ltd vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (99 ITR 375). In the case of Sun Beam Auto, the Hon'ble High Court has pointed out a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. If there is a lack of enquiry, then the assessment order can be branded as erroneous. The following observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High…

MONIKA MONDAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 198/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 198/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-2018

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270A

…imply because in his order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard. 12. Apart from the above principles, we deem it appropriate to make reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto reported in 227 CTR 113 and Gee Vee Enterprises Ltd vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (99 ITR 375). In the case of Sun Beam Auto, the Hon'ble High Court has pointed out a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. If there is a lack of enquiry, then the assessment order can be branded as erroneous. The following observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High…

M/S KINNOR KINNOREE,KOLKATA vs. CIT-X, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/KOL/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…e discussion in that regard. 12 Assessment Year : 2005-2006 M/s. Kinnor Kinnoree 11. Apart from the above principles, we deem it appropriate to make reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto reported in 227 CTR 113 and Gee Vee Enterprises Ltd vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (99 ITR 375). In the case of Sun Beam Auto, the Hon'ble High Court has pointed out a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. If there is a lack of enquiry, then the assessment order can be branded as erroneous. The following observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High…

KESHAV SARAF,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-15, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 156/KOL/2021[2015-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2022AY 2015-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 108Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…laborate discussion in that regard. 10. Apart from the above principles, we deem it appropriate to make reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto 13 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Keshav Saraf reported in 227 CTR 113 and Gee Vee Enterprises Ltd vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (99 ITR 375). In the case of Sun Beam Auto, the Hon'ble High Court has pointed out a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. If there is a lack of enquiry, then the assessment order can be branded as erroneous. The following observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High…

M/S SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL -2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 130/KOL/2021[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 80I

…simply because in his order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard. 9. Apart from the above principles, we deem it appropriate to make reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto reported in 227 CTR 113 and Gee Vee Enterprises Ltd vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (99 ITR 375). In the case of Sun Beam Auto, the Hon'ble High Court has pointed out a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. If there is a lack of enquiry, then the assessment order can be branded as erroneous. The following observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High…

H.P. BUDHIA CHARITABLE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ITO, (EXP.), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata19 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…imply because in his order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard. 12. Apart from the above principles, we deem it appropriate to make reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto reported in 227 CTR 113 and Gee Vee Enterprises Ltd vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (99 ITR 375). In the case of Sun Beam 11 A.Y. 2016-2017 H.P. Budhia Charitable Trust Auto, the Hon'ble High Court has pointed out a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. If there is a lack of enquiry, then the assessment order can be branded as erroneous. Th…

DIAMOND BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 208/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 208/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Diamond Beverages Private Limited Pr. Cit, Kolkata - 2 P-41, Taratala Road Vs Taratala Kolkata – 700 088 Pan : Aabcd3346C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : S. Agarwal, Aca Revenue By : Md. Ghayas Uddin, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/07/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajpal Yadav:

For Appellant: S. Agarwal, ACAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, CIT, D/R

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 37Section 80G

…simply because in his order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard. 13. Apart from the above principles, we deem it appropriate to make reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto reported in 227 CTR 113 and Gee Vee Enterprises Ltd vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (99 ITR 375). In the case of Sun Beam Auto, the Hon'ble High Court has I.T.A. No. 208/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Diamond Beverages Private Limited 15 pointed out a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. If there is a lack of enquiry, then the assessment o…

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

…will be erroneous and prejudicial to -the interests of the revenue Rampyari JJ.e1.Ji Saraoqiu •. CIT 119681671 TR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Aggarwal v. CIT {19731 88 ITR 323 (SC)". 4.3] Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT us. Sun Beam Auto reported in 227 CTR 113 has pointed out a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. If there is a lack of enquiry, then the assessment order can be branded as erroneous. The following observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court c worth to note:- "12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have gone through the re…

DEV RAJ GARG,SHAHABAD (M) vs. PR. CIT, KARNAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 774/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Chhabra, AdvFor Respondent: CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…simply because in his order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard. 8. Apart from the above principles, we deem it appropriate to make reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto reported in 227 CTR 113 and Gee Vee Enterprises Ltd vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (99 ITR 375). In the case of Sun Beam Auto, the Hon'ble High Court has pointed out a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. If there is a lack of enquiry, then the assessment order can be branded as erroneous. The following observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High…

DIPAL PIYUSH PALKIWALA ,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 3462/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.839/Ahd/2015 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3462/Ahd/2016 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dipal Piyush Palkhiwala, Ito Ward-4(4) 27, Rivera Greens, 1St Floor, Vs Gokuldham Navjeevan Trust Building Sarkhej-Sanand Road, Sanathal, Ahmedabad-380014 Ahmedabad-382210 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Rita Dokania, Cit- Dr

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Rita Dokania, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…011 and 701/Rjt/2014 order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard. 16. Apart from the above principles, we deem it appropriate to make reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto reported in 227 CTR 113 and Gee Vee Enterprises Ltd vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income ITA Nos839/Ahd/2015 & ITANo. 3462/Ahd/2016 Dipal Piyush Palkhiwala For AY 2010-11 13 Tax (99 ITR 375). In the case of Sun Beam Auto, the Hon'ble High Court has pointed out a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. If there is a lack of enquiry, then the assessment o…

DIPAL PIYUSH PALKIWALA ,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-4(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 839/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Rita Dokania, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2