CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd.

198 ITR 297Supreme Court of India1992#61 most cited

What is CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. authority for?

A court's pronouncement derives its scope and color from the specific questions involved in the case, thus, due regard must always be given to the questions framed before the court when interpreting its judgment.

814

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sun Engineering Works · 198 ITR 297 · Supreme Court 1992 · judgment interpretation · scope of decision · questions framed · judicial precedent · Section 147 · reassessment · income escaping assessment

Also reported as

64 Taxmann 442107 CTR 209

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(1)Section 14A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(viii)section 56(viii)section 45(5)(c)section 155(16)section 23(1a)section 104section 45(5)(b)section 145b(1)section 194lakeyman insurancesection 160section 23(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd.

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Sew Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1416/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.Nos.1721, 1722, 1723/Hyd/2017 Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016 The DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), 6th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. Telangana. (Appellant) vs. M/s. SEW Infrastructure Limited, 6-3-871, Snehalata, Greenlands Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad. Telangana. PAN AADCS4061P (Respondent) ITA.No.1416/Hyd./2019 Assessment Year 2016-2017 The DCIT, Circle-3(1), Room No.714, 7th Floor, Singature Towers, Opp. Botanical Gardens, K…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), Hyderbad vs. Sew Infrastucture Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1723/HYD/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.Nos.1721, 1722, 1723/Hyd/2017 Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016 | The DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), 6th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. Telangana. (Appellant) | vs. | M/s. SEW Infrastructure Limited, 6-3-871, Snehalata, Greenlands Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad. Telangana. PAN AADCS4061P (Respondent) ITA.No.1416/Hyd./2019 Assessment Year 2016-2017 The DCIT, Circle-3(1), Room No.714, 7th Floor, Singature Towers, Opp. Botanic…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Sew Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1721/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.Nos.1721, 1722, 1723/Hyd/2017 Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016 The DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), 6th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. Telangana. (Appellant) vs. M/s. SEW Infrastructure Limited, 6-3-871, Snehalata, Greenlands Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad. Telangana. PAN AADCS4061P (Respondent) ITA.No.1416/Hyd./2019 Assessment Year 2016-2017 The DCIT, Circle-3(1), Room No.714, 7th Floor, Singature Towers, Opp. Botanical Gardens, K…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Khemka Stuart Leisure Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6215/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 274

…points of arguments canvassed by both the sides. Though there is plethora of judicial precedents on this aspect, it will suffice here to reproduce the relevant part of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd.; 198 ITR 297, which is self-explanatory: “It is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or sentence from the judgment of this court, divorced from the context the question under consideration and treat it to be the complete law declared by this court. ….”. 16. In the case of UOI &Ors. v. Dhanwanti Devi &Ors; 6 SCC 44, the Hon’ble Supreme Court o…

Grant Medical Foundation, Pune vs. Income Tax Office, Exemption Circle, Pune

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

ITA 1193/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar – CIT-DR
Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…emptions" b) The AO should follow the precedents set by following case laws whereby it has been held that the proceedings initiated for the interest of revenue cannot be allowed for the benefits of the assessee. i) CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC) ii) CIT v. Caixa Economica De Goa [1994] 210 ITR 719 (Bombay) c) However, if any benefit is claimed by the assessee which could be requested through any alternate remedy, he/she/it should be advised to adopt/explore alternate mechanism under section 119 or any other provisions available as propounded in the case of Hon'ble Apex court in M/s.…

Chandan Raltors P Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 761/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…tries in the bank account made in cash or otherwise. Thus, the credit entries are linked to the income that is said to have escaped assessment as per the reasons recorded. 10. 1. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering Ltd reported in (1992) 198 ITR 297 dealt with the provisions of section 147 as they stood prior to the amendment on 01/04/1989. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the expression “escaped assessment" includes both “non-assessment" as well as “under assessment". It was held that, income is said to have escaped assessment within the meaning of section when it has not been charged to th…

Mhatre Palace Chsl, Borivali West vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, Mumbai

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

ITA 6394/MUM/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainvs. Ito – 42(1)(3) Mhatre Palace Chsl Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc 106 Mhatre Palace Chs Ltd Bandra E – 400 051. Ic Colony, Link Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai 400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaaam9414D (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

…e Supreme Court. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the reliance placed upon the aforesaid decisions by the AO is completely misplaced. In this regard, following observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Sun Engineering Private Limited, [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC), becomes relevant: "It is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment of the Court, divorced from the 9 Mhatre Palace CHSL, Mumbai context of the question under consideration and treat it to be the complete 'law' declared by the Court. The judgment must be read as a whole and the observations from…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur vs. M/S. Fuelco Coal India Ltd., Nagpur

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 90/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40aSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGARAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRIK.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.90/Nag./2022 (Assessment Year : 2014–15) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Circle–1(2), Nagpur v/s M/s. Fuel Co. Coal India Ltd. 926–A, Fulwani Palace ……………. Respondent Central Avenue, Despande Layout Nagpur 440 008 PAN – AAACF8231B Assessee by : Shri Kishore P. Dewani Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 30/01/2025 Date of Order – 14/02/2025 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. The appeal by the assessee is emanating from the impu…

Sunita Jajoo, Surat vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(4), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 882/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo Income Tax Officer, Ward- 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura बनाम Ring Road, Surat City, Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-395 002 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

…propositions assumed by the Court to be correct for the purpose of disposing of the particular case. This position has been made further clear by the Supreme Court in a recent decision in CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works Pvt Ltd. (1992) 107 CTR (SC) 209 : (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) at 320 where it was observed : "It is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment of this Court, divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to be the complete "law" declared by this Court. The judgment must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have…

Hsbc Securities and Capital Markets (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai-4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2586/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa Gandhi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, Ld. D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 154Section 263

…assessment can be initiated when what is assessable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The power to deal with underassessment and the scope of reassessment proceedings as explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering [1992] 198 ITR 297, is in relation to that which has escaped assessment, and does not extend to reopening the entire assessment for the purpose of redoing the same de novo. An assessee cannot agitate in any such reassessment proceedings matters forming part of the original assessment which are not required to be dealt with for the purpose of levying tax on that whi…

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 936/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…High Court in K. Sudhakar S. Shanbhag Vs ITO [2000] 161 CTR (Bom) 391 [2000] 241 1TR 865 (Bom). This decision was rendered by taking notice of the principle laid by the Hon'ble apex Court in CIT Vs Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. [1992] 107 CTR (SC) 209 [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC) to the effect that in reassessment proceedings, an assessee can neither claim nor be allowed a deduction that was not claimed in the original return. As such the assessment proceedings initiated on the basis of an action under Section 132 of the Act also cannot be utilised by the assessee to seek relief not claimed earlier. Sh. Dheeraj Sing…

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 935/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…High Court in K. Sudhakar S. Shanbhag Vs ITO [2000] 161 CTR (Bom) 391 [2000] 241 1TR 865 (Bom). This decision was rendered by taking notice of the principle laid by the Hon'ble apex Court in CIT Vs Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. [1992] 107 CTR (SC) 209 [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC) to the effect that in reassessment proceedings, an assessee can neither claim nor be allowed a deduction that was not claimed in the original return. As such the assessment proceedings initiated on the basis of an action under Section 132 of the Act also cannot be utilised by the assessee to seek relief not claimed earlier. Sh. Dheeraj Sing…

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 934/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…High Court in K. Sudhakar S. Shanbhag Vs ITO [2000] 161 CTR (Bom) 391 [2000] 241 1TR 865 (Bom). This decision was rendered by taking notice of the principle laid by the Hon'ble apex Court in CIT Vs Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. [1992] 107 CTR (SC) 209 [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC) to the effect that in reassessment proceedings, an assessee can neither claim nor be allowed a deduction that was not claimed in the original return. As such the assessment proceedings initiated on the basis of an action under Section 132 of the Act also cannot be utilised by the assessee to seek relief not claimed earlier. Sh. Dheeraj Sing…

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 933/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…High Court in K. Sudhakar S. Shanbhag Vs ITO [2000] 161 CTR (Bom) 391 [2000] 241 1TR 865 (Bom). This decision was rendered by taking notice of the principle laid by the Hon'ble apex Court in CIT Vs Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. [1992] 107 CTR (SC) 209 [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC) to the effect that in reassessment proceedings, an assessee can neither claim nor be allowed a deduction that was not claimed in the original return. As such the assessment proceedings initiated on the basis of an action under Section 132 of the Act also cannot be utilised by the assessee to seek relief not claimed earlier. Sh. Dheeraj Sing…

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 932/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…High Court in K. Sudhakar S. Shanbhag Vs ITO [2000] 161 CTR (Bom) 391 [2000] 241 1TR 865 (Bom). This decision was rendered by taking notice of the principle laid by the Hon'ble apex Court in CIT Vs Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. [1992] 107 CTR (SC) 209 [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC) to the effect that in reassessment proceedings, an assessee can neither claim nor be allowed a deduction that was not claimed in the original return. As such the assessment proceedings initiated on the basis of an action under Section 132 of the Act also cannot be utilised by the assessee to seek relief not claimed earlier. Sh. Dheeraj Sing…

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 931/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…High Court in K. Sudhakar S. Shanbhag Vs ITO [2000] 161 CTR (Bom) 391 [2000] 241 1TR 865 (Bom). This decision was rendered by taking notice of the principle laid by the Hon'ble apex Court in CIT Vs Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. [1992] 107 CTR (SC) 209 [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC) to the effect that in reassessment proceedings, an assessee can neither claim nor be allowed a deduction that was not claimed in the original return. As such the assessment proceedings initiated on the basis of an action under Section 132 of the Act also cannot be utilised by the assessee to seek relief not claimed earlier. Sh. Dheeraj Sing…

Shree Chandi Maa Mahakali Prachin Mandir Sidh Peeth Samiti, Sonipat vs. CPC, Banglore

ITA 4791/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 92C

…arnataka State Co-operative Apex Banks reported in 283 taxman 98 (Karn.) for the proposition that the assessee can claim a benefit in the proceedings of section 148 of the Act also. Ld. D.R. relied upon the judgement in the case of Sun Engineering reported in 198 ITR 297 (SC) for the proposition that assessee cannot claim a benefit under proceedings of section 148 of the Act. 30.3 After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering (supra), wherein it was held as under: "26. Although s.147 is par…

Sms Concast Ag, New Delhi vs. ACIT, (International Taxation), Circle- 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 2695/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanddit, Circle 2 (2), Vs. Sms Siemag Ag, New Delhi. C/O Mohinder Puri & Co., 1A-1D, Vandhna, 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – 110 01. (Aadcs1173J) Sms Siemag Ag, Vs. Ddit, Circle 2 (2), C/O Mohinder Puri & Co., New Delhi. 1A-1D, Vandhna, 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – 110 01. (Aadcs1173J)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148

…omes have been claimed as non-taxable which were offered to tax in original and revised returns. This action of the appellant is not as per law on the issue as Hon'ble Supreme Court has long ago in its decision in case of CIT v Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. 198 ITR 297 has laid down that reassessment jurisdiction is available only to the AO and not to the assessee and the assessee in reassessment proceedings cannot claim that certain incomes originally declared as taxable are not taxable. Therefore, the AO has rightly considered the income returned in the revised return as starting point and not the income retu…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. Sunlight Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd

ITA/222/2022HC Delhi12 Nov 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…may find to have escaped assessment, and which may come to his notice subsequently, in the course of proceedings under section 147.” 14. The Bombay High Court also discussed the case of V. Jaganmohan Rao (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC) and Sun Engineering (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) of the apex court. In the case of Sun Engineering (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC), the issue before the Supreme Court was whether in the course of reassessment on an escaped item of income an assessee could seek a review in respect of an item which stood concluded in the original order of assessment. The Supreme Court dealt with the provisions…

Shivalik Prints Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range-8, New Delhi

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

ITA 8136/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80J

…. Copy of said decision filed on earlier date of hearing is again being attached as Annexure-A 2. It is settled law that a judgement is an authority on the facts of the case and the issue decided therein. Please refer CIT Vs Sun Engineering Works P Ltd [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC): 304 ITR 216 (AAR) - Airport Authority of India, In re 3. In the case of Nath Brothers exemption was claimed u/s 10B(5) in the revised return which was denied by the AO by application of 4th proviso to section 10B(1) as per which exemption is required to be claimed in the original return filed u/s 139(1). Pending appeal before the ITAT, befo…