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 366,470 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.

DCIT Cir. 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2314/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…e amended provision. Our view is fortified by the decision from Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Bawa Abhai Singh vs DCIT (2001) 117 taxman 12 and Rakesh Agarwal vs ACIT (1996) 87 taxman 306 (Del.). The Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs Sun Engineering works Pvt. Ltd. 198 ITR 297 (SC) clearly held that proceedings u/s 147 are for the benefit for the Revenue, which are aimed at gathering the ‘escaped income’. At the same time, We are aware that powers u/s 147 and 148 of the Act are not unbridled one as it is hedged with several safeguards conceived in the interest of eliminating room for abuse of this power by the AO. How…

DCIT Cir. 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2313/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…e amended provision. Our view is fortified by the decision from Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Bawa Abhai Singh vs DCIT (2001) 117 taxman 12 and Rakesh Agarwal vs ACIT (1996) 87 taxman 306 (Del.). The Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs Sun Engineering works Pvt. Ltd. 198 ITR 297 (SC) clearly held that proceedings u/s 147 are for the benefit for the Revenue, which are aimed at gathering the ‘escaped income’. At the same time, We are aware that powers u/s 147 and 148 of the Act are not unbridled one as it is hedged with several safeguards conceived in the interest of eliminating room for abuse of this power by the AO. How…

Oricon Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 2913/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Swamy-CIT-DR
Section 14Section 148Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)Section 43Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ई” ” ” ” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं पवन "सह पवन "सह,"याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं पवन "सह पवन "सह "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Pawan Singh, Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./2913/Mum/2015, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. Oricon Enterprises…

Sharad Badrivishal Pitti, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-16(3), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1689/HYD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Apr 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahshri Sharad Badrivishal Pitti Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad Tax, Circle 16(3) Pan: Adfp2418K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Laxmi Niwas SharmaFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…by the assessee in reply to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. She relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Page 4 of 6 ITA No 1689 of 2016 Sharad Badrivishal Pitti Hyderabad. Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd reported in (1992) 198 ITR 297 (S.C). 7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the property at Sultan Bazar was constructed by the assessee and the Loya family in the year 1986- 87 and the rental income was being enjoyed by each of the parties in the ratio of 60:40. It is also not in dispute that the assessee has been offering the inc…

Kothari Jewels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 455/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Apr 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri Varindar Mehta (CIT)
Section 132Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 153A

…le defect could be pointed out by the lower authorities. Ld. CIT(A) has misplaced his reliance on the case laws, as mentioned above and picked up lines, from the orders, suiting his requirements. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC) held that each case has to be read in the factual background of the case. 3.23 Ld. CIT(A) did not provide any cogent reason for not following the ratio laid down by the various judgments put forth before him. In particular, ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Sphoorti Machine Tools (P.)…

ITO 6(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Juliet Industries Ltd. (Formerly Known As Juliet Products Ltd.), Mumbai

ITA 5975/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5452/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Juliet Industries Limited Income Tax Officer 6(3)(3) Room No. 524, 5Th Floor A-313 बनाम/ Shah & Nayar Industrial Estate Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Lower Parel M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacj-6924-H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5975/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer 6(3)(3) Juliet Industries Limited Room No. 524, 5Th Floor A-313 बनाम/ Aaykar Bhawan Shah & Nayar Industrial Estate Vs. M.K.Road Lower Parel Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacj-6924-H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Vijay Mehta, Ld.ARFor Respondent: V.Vidhyadhar, Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ich has subsequently been followed by Delhi High Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT [2011 336 ITR 136]. The decision by Hon’ble Bombay High Court has been rendered after considering the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Sun Engg. Works P. Ltd. [198 ITR 297] and several other judgments and the Hon’ble Court have held as under:- 16. In CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 107 CTR (SC) 209 :(1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) : (1992) 64 Taxman 442 (SC), the Supreme Court dealt with the following question of law in the course of its judgment : "Where an item unconnected with the escapement of income has…

Juliet Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 5452/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5452/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Juliet Industries Limited Income Tax Officer 6(3)(3) Room No. 524, 5Th Floor A-313 बनाम/ Shah & Nayar Industrial Estate Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Lower Parel M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacj-6924-H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5975/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer 6(3)(3) Juliet Industries Limited Room No. 524, 5Th Floor A-313 बनाम/ Aaykar Bhawan Shah & Nayar Industrial Estate Vs. M.K.Road Lower Parel Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacj-6924-H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Vijay Mehta, Ld.ARFor Respondent: V.Vidhyadhar, Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ich has subsequently been followed by Delhi High Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT [2011 336 ITR 136]. The decision by Hon’ble Bombay High Court has been rendered after considering the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Sun Engg. Works P. Ltd. [198 ITR 297] and several other judgments and the Hon’ble Court have held as under:- 16. In CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 107 CTR (SC) 209 :(1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) : (1992) 64 Taxman 442 (SC), the Supreme Court dealt with the following question of law in the course of its judgment : "Where an item unconnected with the escapement of income has…

Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan vs. Rich & Royal, Kalyan

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner indicated above

ITA 1007/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1007/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit Cir 3 बिाम/ M/S. Rich & Royal 2N D Floor, Rani Mansion, The Raymond Shop, Murbad Road, Kalyan(W), Zojwalla Complex, V. Dist Thane 421301 Agra Road, Kalyan (W) 421301 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadfr3357G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri. Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 43B

…he amended provision. Our view is fortified by the decision from Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in Bawa Abhai Singh vs DCIT (2001) 117 taxman 12 and Rakesh Agarwal vs ACIT (1996) 87 taxman 306 (Del.). The Hon‟ble Apex Court in CIT vs Sun Engineering works Pvt. Ltd. 198 ITR 297 (SC) clearly held that proceedings u/s 147 are for the benefit for the Revenue, which are aimed at gathering the „escaped income‟. At the same time, We are aware that powers u/s 147 and 148 of the Act are not unbridled one as it is hedged with several safeguards conceived in the interest of eliminating room for abuse of this power by the AO. Howe…

Assistant Commissioner Income-Tax vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1811/PUN/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

For Appellant: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CITFor Respondent: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /
Section 119(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…income, ITA Nos.1805 to 1811/PUN/2014 8 the assessee can claim additional benefits? For the above said, reliance was placed on the following decisions:- i) Charchit Agarwal Vs. ACIT (2009) 34 SOT 348 (Del) ii) CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) iii) Sarla Handicrafts (P.) Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (2008) 296 ITR 94 (P&H) iv) Suncity Alloys (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2009) 124 TTJ 674 (JD) v) Dhanush General Stores Vs. CIT (2011) 339 ITR 651 (Chhattisgarh) vi) Shri Gajendra D. Pawar Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.1009 to 1012/PUN/2015, relating to assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09, order dated 31.10.2017…

Assistant Commissioner Income-Tax vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1810/PUN/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

For Appellant: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CITFor Respondent: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /
Section 119(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…income, ITA Nos.1805 to 1811/PUN/2014 8 the assessee can claim additional benefits? For the above said, reliance was placed on the following decisions:- i) Charchit Agarwal Vs. ACIT (2009) 34 SOT 348 (Del) ii) CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) iii) Sarla Handicrafts (P.) Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (2008) 296 ITR 94 (P&H) iv) Suncity Alloys (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2009) 124 TTJ 674 (JD) v) Dhanush General Stores Vs. CIT (2011) 339 ITR 651 (Chhattisgarh) vi) Shri Gajendra D. Pawar Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.1009 to 1012/PUN/2015, relating to assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09, order dated 31.10.2017…

Assistant Commissioner Income-Tax vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1809/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

For Appellant: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CITFor Respondent: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /
Section 119(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…income, ITA Nos.1805 to 1811/PUN/2014 8 the assessee can claim additional benefits? For the above said, reliance was placed on the following decisions:- i) Charchit Agarwal Vs. ACIT (2009) 34 SOT 348 (Del) ii) CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) iii) Sarla Handicrafts (P.) Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (2008) 296 ITR 94 (P&H) iv) Suncity Alloys (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2009) 124 TTJ 674 (JD) v) Dhanush General Stores Vs. CIT (2011) 339 ITR 651 (Chhattisgarh) vi) Shri Gajendra D. Pawar Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.1009 to 1012/PUN/2015, relating to assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09, order dated 31.10.2017…

Assistant Commissioner Income-Tax vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1808/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

For Appellant: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CITFor Respondent: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /
Section 119(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…income, ITA Nos.1805 to 1811/PUN/2014 8 the assessee can claim additional benefits? For the above said, reliance was placed on the following decisions:- i) Charchit Agarwal Vs. ACIT (2009) 34 SOT 348 (Del) ii) CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) iii) Sarla Handicrafts (P.) Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (2008) 296 ITR 94 (P&H) iv) Suncity Alloys (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2009) 124 TTJ 674 (JD) v) Dhanush General Stores Vs. CIT (2011) 339 ITR 651 (Chhattisgarh) vi) Shri Gajendra D. Pawar Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.1009 to 1012/PUN/2015, relating to assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09, order dated 31.10.2017…

Assistant Commissioner Income-Tax vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1807/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

For Appellant: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CITFor Respondent: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /
Section 119(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…income, ITA Nos.1805 to 1811/PUN/2014 8 the assessee can claim additional benefits? For the above said, reliance was placed on the following decisions:- i) Charchit Agarwal Vs. ACIT (2009) 34 SOT 348 (Del) ii) CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) iii) Sarla Handicrafts (P.) Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (2008) 296 ITR 94 (P&H) iv) Suncity Alloys (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2009) 124 TTJ 674 (JD) v) Dhanush General Stores Vs. CIT (2011) 339 ITR 651 (Chhattisgarh) vi) Shri Gajendra D. Pawar Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.1009 to 1012/PUN/2015, relating to assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09, order dated 31.10.2017…

Assistant Commissioner Income-Tax vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1806/PUN/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

For Appellant: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CITFor Respondent: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /
Section 119(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…income, ITA Nos.1805 to 1811/PUN/2014 8 the assessee can claim additional benefits? For the above said, reliance was placed on the following decisions:- i) Charchit Agarwal Vs. ACIT (2009) 34 SOT 348 (Del) ii) CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) iii) Sarla Handicrafts (P.) Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (2008) 296 ITR 94 (P&H) iv) Suncity Alloys (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2009) 124 TTJ 674 (JD) v) Dhanush General Stores Vs. CIT (2011) 339 ITR 651 (Chhattisgarh) vi) Shri Gajendra D. Pawar Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.1009 to 1012/PUN/2015, relating to assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09, order dated 31.10.2017…

Assistant Commissioner Income-Tax vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1805/PUN/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

For Appellant: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CITFor Respondent: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /
Section 119(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…income, ITA Nos.1805 to 1811/PUN/2014 8 the assessee can claim additional benefits? For the above said, reliance was placed on the following decisions:- i) Charchit Agarwal Vs. ACIT (2009) 34 SOT 348 (Del) ii) CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) iii) Sarla Handicrafts (P.) Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (2008) 296 ITR 94 (P&H) iv) Suncity Alloys (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2009) 124 TTJ 674 (JD) v) Dhanush General Stores Vs. CIT (2011) 339 ITR 651 (Chhattisgarh) vi) Shri Gajendra D. Pawar Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.1009 to 1012/PUN/2015, relating to assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09, order dated 31.10.2017…

Anz Operations and Technology Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DDIT, Bangalore

ITA 1508/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Kaushik Mukherjee, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 201(1)Section 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. & Appellant Respondent No Asst. year 1 193/Bang/2010 M/s.ANZ Operations & Deputy Commissioner of (2008-09) Technology Pvt. Ltd. Income-tax, Circle 1(1), Embassy Gold Links Bengaluru. Business Park, Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore-560071. PAN:AABCA 9002G 2 IT(IT)A No. Deputy Director of Income- 1508/Bang/2012 -do- tax, International Taxation, (2008-09) Circle 1(1), Bengaluru. 3 156/Bang/2010 M/s.Jubilant Biosys Ltd. Income-tax Officer (2007-08) Plot…

Jubilant Biosys Limited, Noida vs. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 611/BANG/2010[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Kaushik Mukherjee, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 201(1)Section 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. & Appellant Respondent No Asst. year 1 193/Bang/2010 M/s.ANZ Operations & Deputy Commissioner of (2008-09) Technology Pvt. Ltd. Income-tax, Circle 1(1), Embassy Gold Links Bengaluru. Business Park, Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore-560071. PAN:AABCA 9002G 2 IT(IT)A No. Deputy Director of Income- 1508/Bang/2012 -do- tax, International Taxation, (2008-09) Circle 1(1), Bengaluru. 3 156/Bang/2010 M/s.Jubilant Biosys Ltd. Income-tax Officer (2007-08) Plot…

Jubilant Biosys Limited, Noida vs. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 610/BANG/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Kaushik Mukherjee, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 201(1)Section 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. & Appellant Respondent No Asst. year 1 193/Bang/2010 M/s.ANZ Operations & Deputy Commissioner of (2008-09) Technology Pvt. Ltd. Income-tax, Circle 1(1), Embassy Gold Links Bengaluru. Business Park, Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore-560071. PAN:AABCA 9002G 2 IT(IT)A No. Deputy Director of Income- 1508/Bang/2012 -do- tax, International Taxation, (2008-09) Circle 1(1), Bengaluru. 3 156/Bang/2010 M/s.Jubilant Biosys Ltd. Income-tax Officer (2007-08) Plot…

Anz Operations and Technology Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DDIT, Bangalore

ITA 193/BANG/2010[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Kaushik Mukherjee, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 201(1)Section 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. & Appellant Respondent No Asst. year 1 193/Bang/2010 M/s.ANZ Operations & Deputy Commissioner of (2008-09) Technology Pvt. Ltd. Income-tax, Circle 1(1), Embassy Gold Links Bengaluru. Business Park, Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore-560071. PAN:AABCA 9002G 2 IT(IT)A No. Deputy Director of Income- 1508/Bang/2012 -do- tax, International Taxation, (2008-09) Circle 1(1), Bengaluru. 3 156/Bang/2010 M/s.Jubilant Biosys Ltd. Income-tax Officer (2007-08) Plot…

M/S Smart Cube India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 5473/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Stay Application No.109/Del Of 2018 (In Ita No.5473/Del/2016) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 10BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 148

…of the Act, in response to which the assessee filed a return of income on 1.5.2014 preferring claim u/s 10A of the Act. Both the learned AR and learned DR are placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd., 198 ITR 297 (SC). Placing reliance on this decision learned DR argued that keeping in view the object and purpose of the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, which are for the benefit of the revenue and not an assessee, the assessee cannot raise a claim u/s 10A of the Act in the return filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act inasmuch as such a claim wa…