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 367,181 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.

Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Andhra Pradesh Expressway Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1000/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)
Section 32(1)(ii)

…l, in the case of West Gujarat Expressway, the Hon’ble High Court followed the ratio laid in North Karnataka Expressway (supra). In this context, he drew our attention to the observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering reported in 198 ITR 297 (SC) wherein their Lordship reiterated the observation made in the case of Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur Vs. Union of India (1971) (3 SCR 9; AIR 1971 SC 530) “ It is not proper to regard a word, a clause or a sentence occur-ring in a judgment of the Supreme Court, divorced from its context, as containing a full exposition of the law on a…

Marksans Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1717/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 35

…sent appeal under consideration before us. Thus, the reliance upon the aforesaid decision by the learned CIT(A) is completely misplaced. In this regard, the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Sun Engineering Private Limited, [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC), become relevant: Marksans Pharma Ltd. ITA no.1717/Mum./2023 “It is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment of the Court, divorced from the 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 observat…

Diagold Designs Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-12(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee, are partly allowed

ITA 445/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal & Diagold Designs Limited, Cc2070, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 051 ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit-12(2) (1) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan – Aabcd3716 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, Hitesh TrivediFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 147Section 148Section 250

…tion directly relating to that income only can be claimed. As in this case, assessee claimed higher amount of loss in return filed in compliance to section 148 as compared to the return filed u/s. 139(1) is legally not permissible. Diagold Designs Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC) CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. “In the instant case, the Tribunal rightly found that the loss which the assessee wanted to be set off against the 'escaped income' could not be allowed to be so set-off because in the original assessment proceedings no 'set off was claimed or permitted and the original assessment had acquired finality…

The ACIT, Central-2, Indore vs. M/S. Keti Construction (India) Ltd., Indore

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 63/IND/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Keti Construction (India) Central-2, बनाम/ Limited, Indore Indore. Vs. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aabck 5930 D Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Ajay Tulsian, Ca Date Of Hearing 09.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023

Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…n Vs. British Railways Board (1972) 2 WLR 537. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases.” 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. 198 ITR 297 (SC) vide para 37 observed as under :- “37. .......... . 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 fr…

Drishti Lifesaving Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Centralised Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1076/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm Drishti Lifesaving Pvt. Ltd. Top Floor, Mehta, Mahal, Cpc, 15, Mathew Road, Vs. Benaluru-560600 Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcd0528C

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…2019-20 prescribed under section 143 (2) of giving notice to the assessee. It is not open for him to disallow such claim under section 143 (1) (a). He further relied upon the decision of the honorable Supreme Court in case of CIT versus Sun engineering works 198 ITR 297 wherein the honorable Supreme Court held that the ratio of the Supreme Court decision is to be applied in the context in which it was rendered. His claim was further that the debatable issue cannot be rectified. For this proposition he relied on the decision of the honorable Supreme Court in case of ITO versus Wolkart Bros 82 ITR 50. Without prej…

Star Paper Mills Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 424/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 424/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Star Paper Mills Ltd. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata Duncan House Vs 31, N.S. Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecs0759B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca Revenue By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 20/06/2022, Passed U/S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Which Is Arising Out Of The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld. Drp) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Dt. 29/04/2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ao/Tpo In Complete Disregard Of The Binding Precedent In Assessee'S Own Case For 2

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92B

…before the Court. It is settled legal proposition that the observations of the any Court must be read in the context of the facts and the issues before the Court for consideration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd (198 ITR 297) has observed as follows: "It is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment of the Court, divorced from the 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 the judgment have to be consid…

Tata Aig Life Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3557/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 263Section 44

…he recording of the reasons or part of it, or even nil but the base of such a reassessment will continue to be the original order u/s. 143(3). As has been described in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd., (198 ITR 297) a fresh claim cannot be entertained in the reassessment proceedings with respect to income already assessed. 5 ITA 3556/Mum/2012 Tata AIG Insurance Company Limited Secondly, if one was to see the reasons recorded, the main ground of reopening is that a copy of actuarial Report was not available with the Assessing Officer during the course of as…

Tata Aig Life Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3556/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 263Section 44

…he recording of the reasons or part of it, or even nil but the base of such a reassessment will continue to be the original order u/s. 143(3). As has been described in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd., (198 ITR 297) a fresh claim cannot be entertained in the reassessment proceedings with respect to income already assessed. 5 ITA 3556/Mum/2012 Tata AIG Insurance Company Limited Secondly, if one was to see the reasons recorded, the main ground of reopening is that a copy of actuarial Report was not available with the Assessing Officer during the course of as…

DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-22(1), Chennai vs. M/S Daee Coop T&C Society, Kalpakkam

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2017-18 and cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13, 2014-15 &

ITA 594/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 592, 593 & 594/Chny/2023 & Co Nos: 23, 24 & 25/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Dae Employees Coop Thrift Income Tax, V. & Credit Society Ltd, Non Corporate Circle - First Floor, Main Shopping 22(1), Centre, Dae Township, No.7, Ramakrishna Street, Kalpakkam – 603 102. West Tambaram, [Pan: Aaaad-4689-H] Chennai – 45. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Cross Objector) : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By Respondent/Cross Objector By : Shri. R. Kumar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80P(2)(a)

…been parked some of its funds and hence, interest earned from surplus fund is not eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The ld. DR, further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Sun Engineering Works Pvt Ltd [1992] 198 ITR 297, submits that in reassessment proceedings, the assessee cannot claim any new benefits or fresh claims, because the reopening of assessment is in the benefits of the revenue. Therefore, he submitted that the CIT(A) erred in allowing relief to the assessee and their order should be reversed. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand s…

DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-22(1), Chennai vs. M/S Daee Coop T&C Society, Kalpakkam

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2017-18 and cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13, 2014-15 &

ITA 593/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 592, 593 & 594/Chny/2023 & Co Nos: 23, 24 & 25/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Dae Employees Coop Thrift Income Tax, V. & Credit Society Ltd, Non Corporate Circle - First Floor, Main Shopping 22(1), Centre, Dae Township, No.7, Ramakrishna Street, Kalpakkam – 603 102. West Tambaram, [Pan: Aaaad-4689-H] Chennai – 45. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Cross Objector) : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By Respondent/Cross Objector By : Shri. R. Kumar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80P(2)(a)

…been parked some of its funds and hence, interest earned from surplus fund is not eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The ld. DR, further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Sun Engineering Works Pvt Ltd [1992] 198 ITR 297, submits that in reassessment proceedings, the assessee cannot claim any new benefits or fresh claims, because the reopening of assessment is in the benefits of the revenue. Therefore, he submitted that the CIT(A) erred in allowing relief to the assessee and their order should be reversed. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand s…

DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-22(1), Chennai vs. M/S Daee Coop T&C Society, Kalpakkam

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2017-18 and cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13, 2014-15 &

ITA 592/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 592, 593 & 594/Chny/2023 & Co Nos: 23, 24 & 25/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Dae Employees Coop Thrift Income Tax, V. & Credit Society Ltd, Non Corporate Circle - First Floor, Main Shopping 22(1), Centre, Dae Township, No.7, Ramakrishna Street, Kalpakkam – 603 102. West Tambaram, [Pan: Aaaad-4689-H] Chennai – 45. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Cross Objector) : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By Respondent/Cross Objector By : Shri. R. Kumar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80P(2)(a)

…been parked some of its funds and hence, interest earned from surplus fund is not eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The ld. DR, further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Sun Engineering Works Pvt Ltd [1992] 198 ITR 297, submits that in reassessment proceedings, the assessee cannot claim any new benefits or fresh claims, because the reopening of assessment is in the benefits of the revenue. Therefore, he submitted that the CIT(A) erred in allowing relief to the assessee and their order should be reversed. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand s…

Dhyan Swamibapa Trust, Senjaldham, Tehsil : Savarkundla, Dist: Amreli vs. The ITO Exemption, Ward-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 244/RJT/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot14 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.244/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Dhyan Swamibapa Trust, Ito Senjaldham, Vs. Ward-1(Exemption), Tehsil Saavarkundala Rajkot. Dist. Amreli-364515 C/O. Sanghavi & Company, Prasham, 4Th Floor, Kasturba Road, Nr. Bilkha Plaza, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Aaatd1598E

For Appellant: Shri G.R Sanghavi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143(1)

…e Court itself, but 'what is binding, of course, is the ratio of the decision and not every expression found therein'. Their Lordships have also referred to the oft quoted judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Sun Engg. Works (P.) Ltd. ( 198 ITR 297) wherein it is held that '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 question under consideration, and treat it to be complete law declared by this Court." [Emphasis supplied]. 10. In this light, and bearing in mind the fact that limited question before Th…

Ujjwal Microfinance Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 27(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3877/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…der section 147." 12. The Division Bench in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (supra)considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of V. Jagmohan Rao versus CIT and EPT, (1970) 75 ITR 373(SC) and CIT versus Sun Engineering Works Private Limited, (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) and has then elucidated: "18. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Limited [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom). We may also note that the heading of section 147 is "income escaping assessment" and that of section 148 "issue of notice where income escaped as…

Rajasthan Advance Joint Care Trust, Jaipur vs. ITO, Exemption, Ward 1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 137/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 239Section 239(1)Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 137/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12. cuke Rajasthan Advance Joint Care Trust, The Income Tax Officer Vs. B-56, Unnati Tower, Central Spine, (Exemptions),Ward-1, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AABTR 5387 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assesse…

Sri Bankapur Channabasappa Umapathi, Davangere vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(5), Davangere

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 54/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 139Section 153ASection 44A

…inally on 27.11.2014, the assessee had not claimed any business loss or short- term capital loss. The claim made by the assessee in the return filed u/s.153A of the Act. The AO observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering reported in 198 ITR 297 held that reassessment proceedings are not for the benefit of the assessee. Relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision supra, the AO rejected the assessee's claim of business loss of Rs.1,03,41,582/-, short term capital loss of Rs.18,15,348/- and speculation business loss of Rs.41,061/- in the return filed u/s.153A of the Act to be set off aga…

Sri Bankapur Channabasappa Umapathi, Davangere vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(5), Davangere

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 53/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 139Section 153ASection 44A

…inally on 27.11.2014, the assessee had not claimed any business loss or short- term capital loss. The claim made by the assessee in the return filed u/s.153A of the Act. The AO observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering reported in 198 ITR 297 held that reassessment proceedings are not for the benefit of the assessee. Relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision supra, the AO rejected the assessee's claim of business loss of Rs.1,03,41,582/-, short term capital loss of Rs.18,15,348/- and speculation business loss of Rs.41,061/- in the return filed u/s.153A of the Act to be set off aga…

Sis Prosegur Holdings Pvt Ltd, Patna vs. Pr.CIT-1, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 47/PAT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.47/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sis Prosegur Holdings Pvt. Ltd...…………....….........…..........….…… Appellant Annapoorna Bhawan, Patliputra Telephone Exchange, Kurji, Patna, Bihar-800010 [Pan: Aaucs7524A] Vs. Pcit-1, Patna..................................…………........….....…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nageswar Rao, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 18, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 25.03.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ld. Pcit While Examining Assessment Records Found That The Assessee During The Year Had Issued 900000 Equity Shares Of Rs.10/- At A Premium Of Rs.90/- Per Share Totalling Rs.100/- Per Share. The Ld. Pcit Further Observed As Under: It Is To Be Noted That, During The Year Under Consideration, The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Viib) Were Applicable As Per Which If Aggregate Consideration For Issuance Of Shares Is More Than Fair Market

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…o the Assessing Officer or to the PCIT and even to this Tribunal to go into the question of the correctness of the report of the expert. The ld. counsel in this respect has relied upon the following case laws: i) CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC) dated 17.09.1992 ii) CIT vs. L F D Silva [1991] 192 ITR 547 (Kar) dated 27.09.1991 iii) PCIT vs. Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. [2021] 433 ITR 82 (Delhi) dated 01.03.2021 7. Apart from that, the ld. counsel has submitted that the accountant has given valuation following the ICAI guidelines and following one of the recognised method i.e. d…

Thr Infrastructure Pte Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Cir.-3(1)(1), Intl Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1915/DEL/2022[201-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…seeking to rely upon the said judgment in extenso. It is further submitted that it is not permissible to read a sentence in a judgment in isolation, de hors the context/the facts in which the judgment was rendered (Refer CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd.: 198 ITR 297 (SC) @pg 320) The Assessee is seeking to refer to the dictum of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (supra) in the separate, concurring judgments by the Hon'ble Judges in support of its case of availability of Treaty benefit to the Assessee. 57 THR Infrastructure Pte. Ltd. The Ld. CIT…

Alanice Computer Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 538/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktiit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 197Section 68Section 69C

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Saktiit Dey, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 538/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Alanice Computer Services P. Ltd, Vs. ITO, House No. UNIL NO. 224, 2nd Floor Ward-10(1) LSC, BLG-A, Samrat Enclave, New Delhi Pitampura Landmark Near Mother Dairy, New Delhi-110034 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCG3866E Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 25.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed b…

DCIT, CC-06, New Delhi vs. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 79/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A) & Put

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.79/Del./2022 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) DCIT, Central Circle 6, vs. M/s. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 30, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi – 110 017.. (PAN : AACCJ2199J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA REVENUE BY : Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 06.04.2023 Date of Order : 13.04.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of ld. CIT (…