CIT v. Sun Beam Auto

227 CTR 113High Court#5226 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.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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 263Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 37(1)Section 80GSection 10(38)

Issues it is cited on

section 80g(2)(a)section 80g(1)section 80g(2)section 135csr expendituresection 30principal commissioner of income-taxapplication of incomemalabar industrialchange of opiniongross total incomerevenue expenditure

Judgments citing CIT v. Sun Beam Auto

Pravin L. Manania, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 123/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri. Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri. M. Dayasagar
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 263Section 54

…e does not make an elaborate discussion in this regard. 7 Assessment Year: 2007-08 7. 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 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has propounded 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 are worth to note: "12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other s…

M/S Nirvana Business Solutions Private Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the asst

ITA 1093/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A No.1093/Bang/2013 (Asst. Year – 2006-2007) M/S Nirvana Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., No.98, Shri Krishna Nilayam, 3Rd Cross, Pillana Garden, 3Rd Stage, Bangalore. . Appellant Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore-Iii Bangalore. . Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Anurag Sahay, Cit Date Of Hearing : 31-08-2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-10-2015

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Sahay, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263

…imply because in his order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard. 4.2 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 reported in 227 CTR 113 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has propounded 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 are worth to note: “12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other s…