How many judgments cite CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd.?

814 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (198 ITR 297), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 153A, Section 132, Section 143(2).

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 147 Section 148 Section 153A Section 132 Section 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 104 section 45(5)(b)section 145b(1)section 194la keyman insurance section 160 section 23(2)

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

Kaybee P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (Erstwhile Juridictional ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2165/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92A(1)Section 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)

…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…

Kaybee P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (Erstwhile Juridictional ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2164/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92A(1)Section 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)

Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited, Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 785/AHD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri , Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.785/Ahd/2018 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Gujarat State Electricity Corp. Ltd. Dcit, Circle 1(1)(1) Vidyut Bhavan Vs Baroda Race Course Circle. Baroda Pan No.Aaacg6864F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Revenue) Appellant By : Shri Manish J. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri O.P. Sharma, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…le 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 CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 107 CTR (SC) 209 : (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC), 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 tha…

Unity Infrasporjects Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

ITA 139/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7270 & 7075/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Mohan, AR

Section 143(2)Section 80I

…teria to disallow the deduction u/s. 80IA(4). 17 I.T.A. No. 7270 & 7075/Mum/2017 & ITA No. 139 & 140/Mum/2018 M/s Unity Infraprojects Ltd. 18. We would further like to place reliance on the decision of the Apex Court decision in the case of Sun Engineering (198 ITR 297). 19. Thus the learned A.O.'s view to disallow deduction u/s. 80IA(4) merely for not undertaking "design" work is erroneous. 20. Further, deduction u/s. 80IA(4) is allowable if the infrastructure facility is Developed or operated and maintained or developed, operated and maintained. In the case of Koya 85 Construction (supra), the assessee had un…

M/S Autoliv India Priavte Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal numbered as ITA 593/B/2018 is treated as allowed and other appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 593/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri S Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sowmya Aacharya, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

…Hence the assessee is not entitled to challenge the addition, which was not made in the reassessment order, since the reassessment proceedings are for the benefit of revenue as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd (1992)(198 ITR 297)(SC). Accordingly we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue. 11. In the result, the appeal numbered as ITA 593/B/2018 is treated as allowed and other appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 4th February 2020. (N.V Vasudevan) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated, 4th February,…

Shrimati Neetima Goyal, Ferozpur Cantt vs. Income Tax Officer, 3(2), Ferozpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

ITA 184/ASR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.184/Asr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Neetima Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(2), Ferozepur Prop. Raghav Sales, G.T.Road, Ferozepur Cantt., Pin-152001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Panno. : Aicpg 3586 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri I.P.Bansal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

For Appellant: Shri I.P.Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)Section 44A

…iance on the following case laws:- 9 i. Smt. Prabha Rani Agrawal Vs. ITO [2013] 351 ITR 275 (Allahabad) ii. ITO Vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) iii. Metal Import (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 73 taxmann 375 iv. CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC) Jitendra Kumar Yadav Vs. ACIT, New Delhi in ITA No.1808/Del/2016 v. 8. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative(DR) relied on the orders of authorities below and vehemently submitted that the authority after due consideration of the facts has given a direction for reopening of the case by writing the word "Yes, satisfied” that it…

Shri Jasbir Singh, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-I (2), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 426/ASR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.426/Asr/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…me cannot be subjected to jurisdictional review, is preposterous. First of all, taking out a word or sentence from the entire judgment, divorced from the context and relying upon it, is not permissible (see CIT v. Sun Engg. Works (P) Ltd. [l992] 64 Taxman 442/198 ITR 297 (SC). It may be useful to reproduce the context in which the sentence in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd.'s case (supra) being relied upon by the Revenue to support its case, was made. The context, is as under: "The scope and effect of section 147 as substituted with effect from April 1, 1989, as also sections 148 to 152 are substantially d…

Budhiya Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1231/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1231/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष"S / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Budhiya Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…me cannot be subjected to jurisdictional review, is preposterous. First of all, taking out a word or sentence from the entire judgment, divorced from the context and relying upon it, is not permissible (see CIT v. Sun Engg. Works (P) Ltd. [l992] 64 Taxman 442/198 ITR 297 (SC). It may be useful to reproduce the context in which the sentence in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. 's case (supra) being relied upon by the Revenue to support its case, was made. The context, is as under: "The scope and effect of section 147 as substituted with effect from April 1, 1989, as also sections 148 to 152 are substantially d…

Lawmen Concepts Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-CPC-TDS, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 5140/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Michael Jerald-Sr.DR

Section 200ASection 234E

…the purpose of disposing of the particular case. This ITA No.5140-43/Mum/2018 Lawmen Concepts Private Limited Assessment Year-2014-15 position has been made further clear by the Supreme Court in a recent decision in CIT v. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297, at page 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 hav…

M/S. Incap Contract Manufacturing Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 32/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)

Section 143(3)

…t of Section 147 of the Act lies with the revenue and the assessee cannot take benefit of making new claims in reassessment proceedings. We support our view relying on Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed “that since the proceedings under 9 Section 147 are for the benefit of the revenue and not an assessee, and are aimed at gathering the “escaped income” of an assessee, the same cannot be allowed to be converted as “revisional” or “review” proceedings at the instance of the assessee, thereby making t…

DCIT, CC-6(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Samira Gateways & Properties Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2009-10,

ITA 1750/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2012-2013

For Appellant: Aayush Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Bharti Singh (DR)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

…sment re- opened and completed u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 147? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the decision of the apex court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. reported in 198 ITR 297 was clearly applicable in present case? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not deciding the issue of addition of Rs. 6,82,510/- on merits? Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to app…

State Bank of India, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 16(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1642/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri H. Muralidhara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru

Section 194Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 201(1)Section 44A

…d of trustees constituted was only to administrate the funds in terms of the statute under which the board was created. In our opinion this case also was completely different on facts. As held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (198 ITR 297), observations of the Court has to be understood in the light of the questions raised before it. It is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or sentence divorced from the context of the question raised and treat it as a complete law. 15. Thus in our opinion, assessee was justified in considering the Board to be an institution, asso…

National Laminate Corporation, Mumbai vs. CPC (TDS), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 4902/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik – Ld. DR

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

…must be distinguished from 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 v. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297, at page 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 hav…

M/S.Supras Metals Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(3)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1395/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1395/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…ase. Hence the allegation of Ld CIT (DR) on the decision of Hon'ble High Court is not justified. In this regard, the Appellant would also wish to place reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 wherein it was held that, "It is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgement of Supreme 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 judgement have to be co…

Gordon Bruce Serrao, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -28, Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3105/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram a/wFor Respondent: Shri M. Daya Sagar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.3105/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) Gordon Bruce Serrao Tracy Villa, Plot no.13 Sector–8, Lane–F, Vadhi ……………. Appellant Navi Mumbai 400 703 PAN – ALWPS8430R v/s Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–28, Mumbai Assessee by : Dr. K. Shivaram a/w Shri Sashank Dundu Revenue by : Shri M. Daya Sagar Date of Hearing – 29.08.2019 Date of Order – 05.12.2019 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challen…

Dorf Ketal Chemicals (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 45, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4483/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Dorf Ketal Chemicals India Vs. Commissioner Of Income Private Limited Tax (Appeals) – 50 Room No.514, 5Th Floor 3, Dorf Ketal Tower Ramchandra Lane Earnest House Opp. Idbi Bank Nariman Point Kanchpada, Malad West Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 064 Mumbai - 400021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacd3819P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251Section 35

…ide order dated 29.02.2012 confirmed the addition merely on the technical ground that fresh claim cannot be made in return filed u/s 153A of the Act by placing reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297. f) The assessee then filed an appeal on 23.05.2012 before this tribunal against the said order passed by the erstwhile CIT(A). In the aforesaid appeal before tribunal, the assessee pressed the ground on addition confirmed by erstwhile CIT(A) of Rs.47,54,308/- on account of exempt dividend income earned during the captioned year. 5 M/s. Dorf Ket…

Shri Rajesh Chachwani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 628/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 68

…ther, the reassessment proceedings are not for the benefit of the assessee to make a new claim which is not made in the original return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., 198 ITR 297 (SC) has held that the proceedings under section 147 are for the benefit 5 Shri Rajesh Chachwani, Jaiupr. of the revenue and not for the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held that the matter not agitated in the original assessment cannot be permitted to be agitated in the reassessment proceedings unless relatable to the ite…

Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4), Thane vs. Luke Martin Fernandes, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5336/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiito,Ward-1(4) Vs. Luke Martin Fernandes Room No.11 B-2/104, Raunak Park Chs 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Ltd., Kokani Pada B-Wing, Wagle Industrial Pokharan Road No.2 Estate, Thane(W)-400 604 Thane West-400 606 Pan/Gir No.Aafpf7705G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

…ase. i. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padmasundara Rao (Deed.) and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, Civil Appeal No. 2226 of 1997, order dated 13.03.2002 ii. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in The case of CIT Vs Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. reported in 198 ITR 297. iii. The Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench 'G' [Third Member] in the case of M/s. Grindwell Norton Ltd. vs. DCIT [2G04] 91 ITD 412 [MUM ][TM] iv Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in The case of Kanchan FerroMeT ITA No. 1552/Mum/2017 order dated 05 06.2017 has discussed judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in NK Proteins and held as under 6. The learned Counsel of the a…

ITO, Ward- 3 (5), Kalyan vs. Labco Fine Chemicals, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5423/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaito, Ward-3(5) Vs. Labco Fine Chemicals 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion Mahvir Prabhu Chowk Murbad Road Bazar Peth, Kalyan Kalyan(W)-421 301 Thane

Section 144Section 147

…e. i. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padmasundara Rao (Decd.) and Ors v. State of Tamil Nadu, Civil Appeal No. 2226 of 1997r order dated 13.03.2002. ii. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. reported in 198 ITR 297. iii. The Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench 'G’ [Third Member] in the case of M/s. Grindwell Norton Ltd. vs. DCIT [2004] 91 ITD 412 [MUM] [TM]. iv.. Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Kanchan FerroMet ITA No. 1552/Mum/2017 order dated 05.06.2017 has discussed judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in NK Proteins and held as under 6. The learned Counsel of th…

Religare Capital Markets Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1763/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr AdvoateFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…is improper to read a part of a judgment de hors the context in which the judgment is rendered and the controversy in dispute. Reliance is placed in this regard on the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. 198 ITR 297, wherein the Hon‘ble apex Court held as under (pg 320): ―Such an interpretation would be reading that judgment totally out of context in which the questions arose for decision in that case. 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 cons…