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 366,444 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.

Gali Janardhana Reddy, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1444/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

For Appellant: S/Shri Mayank Jain & Madhur Jain, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR) &
Section 132Section 153CSection 158B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1444 to 1450/Bang/2014 Assessment years : 2005-06 to 2011-12 Shri Gali Janardhana Reddy, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of No.8, Ashoknagar, Havamabavi, Income Tax, Siruguppa Road, Circle 1(3), Bellary - 583 101. Bangalore. PAN: AFBPR 9737D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : S/Shri Mayank Jain & Madhur Jain, Advocates Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR) & Shri S. Praveen S., DCIT, CC, 1(3) Date of hearing : 26.08.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 17.10.2…

Integrid Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 7737/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajay P. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Shridhar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 264Section 35DSection 35D(2)Section 37

…the original claim is to be allowed u/s. 37 as revenue expenditure. 6. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the claim of Rs.1.47 crores is not a new claim but a modified claim in view of the change in stand by Dept., therefore Sun Engineering vs. CIT 198 ITR 297 (SC) is not applicable as only items unconnected with escapement of income cannot be considered, whereas in facts of present case the claim is directly connected with the issue of reopened assessment. 2. As could be seen grounds no.1 and 2 are on the legal and jurisdictional issue of reopening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act. 3. Briefly the fa…

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 18 &19, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 35/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh & Sri Manoj Kumar Agarwal

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…on the basis of search materials and the regular material existing or brought on record before the AO/Revenue. 10. As regards to arguments made by the learned CIT DR, in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering Vs. CIT 198 ITR 297 (SC) that the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r. w. s. 148 of the Act are for the benefit of the Revenue and the assessee is not entitled to lodge a new claim of deduction/exemption/relief during the course of proceedings. We are not in agreement with the arguments of the learned CIT DR that the assessee is not entitled to lodge new claim in reg…

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 18 &19, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 34/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh & Sri Manoj Kumar Agarwal

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…on the basis of search materials and the regular material existing or brought on record before the AO/Revenue. 10. As regards to arguments made by the learned CIT DR, in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering Vs. CIT 198 ITR 297 (SC) that the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r. w. s. 148 of the Act are for the benefit of the Revenue and the assessee is not entitled to lodge a new claim of deduction/exemption/relief during the course of proceedings. We are not in agreement with the arguments of the learned CIT DR that the assessee is not entitled to lodge new claim in reg…

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 18 &19, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 33/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh & Sri Manoj Kumar Agarwal

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…on the basis of search materials and the regular material existing or brought on record before the AO/Revenue. 10. As regards to arguments made by the learned CIT DR, in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering Vs. CIT 198 ITR 297 (SC) that the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r. w. s. 148 of the Act are for the benefit of the Revenue and the assessee is not entitled to lodge a new claim of deduction/exemption/relief during the course of proceedings. We are not in agreement with the arguments of the learned CIT DR that the assessee is not entitled to lodge new claim in reg…

D.C.I.T CC - Xiii, Kolkata. vs. M/S Tantia Constraction Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

ITA 69/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…reduced in a search assessment. He argued that these observations do not draw any support from the provisions of the Act and moreover, the decision relied upon by the ld CITA on the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Sun Engg. Works (P) Ltd reported in 198 ITR 297 (SC) was rendered in the context of section 147 proceedings and not for search proceedings. He further argued that the claim made by the assessee were allowed by the ld CITA and on further appeal to this tribunal by the revenue, the same were dismissed vide ITA Nos. 346 & 347/Kol/2015 dated 17.6.2015. 7. In response to this, the ld DR fairly agre…

ITO WD 2(4), Thane vs. Shiv Om Universal, Badlapur

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6754/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Vachaspati TripathiFor Respondent: Shri Shriram Bajaj
Section 143(3)Section 80

…ined in Goodyear India Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and Another [1991] 188 ITR 402 (SC), a precedent is an authority only for what it actually decides and not what may remotely or even logically follow from it (also: CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC); Blue Star Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 514 (Bom.)). Considering it as a stipulation, rather than a qualitative attribute, the same can be regarded as met where the project is otherwise complete in all respects, i.e., has all the ingredients of the entire project, save its size. A purposive and harmonious construction of the provision leads us…

DCIT, Cir-5, Kolkata vs. M/S. Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 281/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(2)

…, ignoring the fact that the case was reopened on the basis of reason to believe on tangible materials that there was under- assessment of taxable income as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. reported in (198 ITR 297) wherein it is held that the term "escaped assessment" includes both non assessment and under- assessment" . ITA No. 281/Kol/14 M/s. Hindustan Paper CorprnLtd 1 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in holding that the provisions for diminution of stock & spare created in earlier years w…

Diastar Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 139/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 144Section 269SSection 271D

…law that it is not permissible to pick up one word or sentence from the judgement in order 4 Diastar Jewellery P. Limited to understand the ratio of the decision. The following observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering works (198 ITR 297) explains this position of law:- “It is not proper to regard a word, a clause or a sentence occurring in a judgment of the Supreme Court, divorced from its context, as containing a full exposition of the law on a question when the question did not even fall to be answered in that judgment.” 6. In the instant case, the original assessment proceed…

M/S Instrumentarium Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. DDIT (It)-1(1), Kolkata

ITA 1549/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: The Special Bench:

…uestion before Hon’ble Supreme Court was altogether different. 31. As we deal with this aspect of the matter, we may usefully refer to the following observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court itself in the case of CIT Vs Sun Engineering Works Pvt Ltd [(1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC)]: …………… 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 to be considered in the…

Sri. G.M. Solomon Raju, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 459/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri G.M.Soloman Raju, No.14/15, Hillside Medows, Hesarghatta Main Road, Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore-560097. … Appellant Pa No.Akvps 4688 K Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 6(4) New No.6(3)(3) Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri C.R.Nulvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)
Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

…ductions cannot be allowed in the re-assessment proceedings. The issue concluded in original assessment proceedings cannot be re-agitated in the re-assessment proceeding as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd.(1992)(198 ITR 297). The relevant part of the judgment is as under: "Indeed, in the reassessment proceedings for bringing to tax items which had escaped assessment, it would be open to an assessee to put forward claims for deduction of any expenditure in respect of that income or the non-taxability of the items at all. Keeping in view the object and purpose of the…

Marico Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. RG. 9(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8858/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala and Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand-CIT
Section 254(1)

…154/[1996] 84 Taxman 205, that a judicial precedent is an authority for what it actually decides and not what may what come to follow from some observations made therein. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CITv. Sun Engg Works {P} Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297/64 Taxman 442 a " judgement must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgement have to be considered in the light of the question which were before court" and that "a decision takes its colour from the questions involved in the case in which it is rendered and, while applying the decision to a later case, the courts must carefully tr…

Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result ground, no

ITA 6282/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 92C

…substantial services which even an independent enterprise would have been willing to pay for. It is settled law that such selective application of commentaries and decisions is impermissible. (Refer the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Sun Engineering: 198 ITR 297 (SC) and the Order of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Whirlpool India Holdings v. DDIT: 140 TTJ 155. vii. He submitted that there is no challenge to allocation keys applied for the cost allocation to the assessee. For this, he submitted that for AY 2008- 09 there is no challenge to the same and therefore same are accepted by Ld. TP…

Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground, no

ITA 5882/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 92C

…substantial services which even an independent enterprise would have been willing to pay for. It is settled law that such selective application of commentaries and decisions is impermissible. (Refer the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Sun Engineering: 198 ITR 297 (SC) and the Order of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Whirlpool India Holdings v. DDIT: 140 TTJ 155. vii. He submitted that there is no challenge to allocation keys applied for the cost allocation to the assessee. For this, he submitted that for AY 2008- 09 there is no challenge to the same and therefore same are accepted by Ld. TP…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Siro Clinpharm P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2876/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ISection 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

…of these discussions, the reliance placed on Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. (supra) is also equally misplaced and devoid of legally sustainable merits. In any case, as is noted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Sun Engg. Works (P.) Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297/64 Taxman 442 (SC), "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 to be considered…

Siro Clinpharm P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2618/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ISection 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

…of these discussions, the reliance placed on Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. (supra) is also equally misplaced and devoid of legally sustainable merits. In any case, as is noted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Sun Engg. Works (P.) Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297/64 Taxman 442 (SC), "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 to be considered…

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, grounds of appeal Nos

ITA 1372/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raothe Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd., ‘Uthunga’, No.1, Pmk Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore-560018. … Appellant Pan:Aabat 0269 J Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 28

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., ‘Uthunga’, No.1, PMK Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore-560018. … Appellant PAN:AABAT 0269 J Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 3(1), Bangalore. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri Bharath L, CA. Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR). Date of hearing : 03/02/2016 Date of pronouncement : 29/02/2016 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee-co-operative bank, is directed against the ord…

M/S. Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6638/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Lower Ground Floor, C-4/5, New Delhi. Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi (Pan: Aadcp7362G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Sh. Mukesh Butani, Vishal Kalra & Vivek Bansal, Adv. & Ms. Shweta Kashyap, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Anand Kumar Kedia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.10.2013 Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1), New Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) In Relation To Assessment Year 2009-10. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: 1. That The Learned Assessing Officer ("Ao") Erred On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law In Making An Addition To The Total Income Of The Appellant Amounting To Rs. 95,945,630/- In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("Drp") Upholding The Adjustment To The Transfer Price Proposed By The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Tpo").

For Appellant: S/sh. Mukesh Butani, Vishal Kalra & Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anand Kumar Kedia, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

…R 229 (Guj.) for the proposition that for SC's decision to be law has to be declared or stated vocally to support conclusion, not mere conclusion by which case is disposed of. 28 ITA No. 6638/Del/2013, AY: 2009-10 (ix) CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd., 198 ITR 297 for the proposition 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 the question under consideration and treat it to be the & ITA No.5680/Del/2011 complete "law" declared by this court. The judgment must be read as a whole and the observations from the jud…

Prakash Fatandas Jassuja, Thane vs. ITO WD 3(2), Thane

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4933/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133ASection 147

…a. amended provision. My 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, I am 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. Howeve…

ITO (TDS) 2(5), Mumbai vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1300/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Jason P. Boaz

Section 194

…t it to be the complete law declared by the Court (refer CIT Vs. Sun Engineering (supra)]. However, everything would depend upon the facts of each case and the facts of the cases cited as well as the context in which the cited decisions have been delivered. - 198 ITR 297(SC) 5.26 Although the term 'rent' has been defined in the above section of the Act. other terms like 'lease', 'lease premium', 'lessor' and 'lessee' etc. have not been defined in the Act. It may be useful to refer to the meaning of these terms as provided in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act defines…