CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.

332 ITR 167High Court2011#50 most cited

What is CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. authority for?

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment under Section 263 merely because the assessment order does not explicitly reflect an inquiry, or because the Commissioner holds a different opinion. An inquiry, even if considered inadequate, or an assessment based on a plausible view by the Assessing Officer after due examination, does not automatically make the order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

897

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. · Sunbeam Auto Ltd. · Section 263 · Commissioner revisionary powers · lack of enquiry · inadequate enquiry · plausible view AO · not prejudicial to revenue · assessment order detail · different opinion Commissioner · 143(3) scrutiny assessment

Also reported as

189 Taxmann 436227 CTR 13331 DTR 189 Taxmann.com 191

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 57(iv)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 147
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 145bsection 45(5)section 145a(b)section 57(iv)inadequate enquirysection 56(2)(viii)lack of enquirysection 10(37)enhanced compensationmalabar industrialsection 263(1)section 145a

Judgments citing CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.

DAYA RAM SUKHALA (HUF),ROHTAK vs. ITO WARD-3, ROHTAK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1255/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21 Vs. Income Tax Officer Shri Daya Ram Shukla (Huf) Ward-3 83A/22, Kishan Pura, Zila Parishad Building Rohtak- 124001 Rohtak Haryana Haryana Pan: Aaihd7643E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ca Department By Sh. Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…ely because in his order the Ld. AO did not make elaborate discussion but was satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the order could not be held to be erroneous. In support the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) and decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) were cited. 6.2 The Ld. AR invited our attention to Audit Memo at pages 399- 402 of Paper Book in the case of the assessee wherein ITO (Audit) Hisar raised an audit objection observing that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,…

BADAM SINGH SUKHALA (HUF),ROHTAK vs. I T O WARD -3 , ROHTAK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1250/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21 Vs. Income Tax Officer Badam Singh Shukla (Huf) 83 C 22, Ran Singh Lane, Ward-3 Kishan Pura Zila Parishad Building Rohtak-124001 Rohtak Haryana Haryana Pan: Aajhb4611H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ca Department By Sh. Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…ely because in his order the Ld. AO did not make elaborate discussion but was satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the order could not be held to be erroneous. In support the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) and decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) were cited. 6.2 The Ld. AR invited our attention to Audit Memo at pages 399- 402 of Paper Book in the case of the assessee wherein ITO (Audit) Hisar raised an audit objection observing that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,…

PENNAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is partly allowed/partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 832/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ted replies, and applied his mind to an issue, the CIT cannot assume jurisdiction under Section 263 merely on the ground that the enquiry was inadequate. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT v. 17 Pennar Industries Limited vs. DCIT Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) has held that there is a distinction between “lack of enquiry” and “inadequate enquiry”. If there was enquiry, even if inadequate, the Commissioner has no jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in Spectra Shares & Scrips Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2013) 354 ITR 35 has summarized the principles gover…

AMAZON SMART COMMERCE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

ITA 3533/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

…een conducted during the course of assessment. PCIT v. NYA International: [2025] 173 taxmann.com 102 (Guj.) – Revenue's SLP dismissed in [2025] 173 taxmann.com 103 (SC) PCIT v. Clix Finance India (P.) Ltd.: [2025] 473 ITR 650 (Delhi) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd: 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT v. International Travel House: 344 ITR 554 (Del) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del) Gulmohar Finances Limited: 170 Taxman 483 (Del.) Fab India Overseas vs. CIT: 244 CTR 380 (Del.) CIT vs. Vodafone Essar: 212 Taxman 184 (Del.) -CIT v. DLF Ltd.: 350 ITR 555 (Del) -CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co: 171 ITR 141 (MP) -CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bish…

DHARMBATI,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX INSPECTOR FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5672/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 Dharmbati, Vs. Income Tax Inspector, H. No. 523, Chandawali, Faridabad Ballabhgarh, Faridabad Pan: Azipb6400G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.03.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1077406804(1), Dated 23.06.2025 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest. He Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex-Parte. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities’ Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 3. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S Pleadings & Revenue’S Foregoing Vehement Contention. It Emerges That This Tribunal’S Recent Decision In Pawan Kumar Vs. Pcit (2024) 159 Taxmann.Com 61 (Del.-Trib.) Has Distinguished The Said Case Law As Under:

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…ely because in his order the Ld. AO did not make elaborate discussion but was satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the order could not be held to be erroneous. In support the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) and decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) were cited. 6.2 The Ld. AR invited our attention to Audit Memo at pages 399-402 of Paper Book in the case of the assessee wherein ITO (Audit) Hisar raised an audit objection observing that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,9…

PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 625/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.625/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Progressive Constructions The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Circle-5(1) Vs. Pin – 500 001. Telangana. Hyderabad - 500 004. Pan Aabcp2274M Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : & Sri Santi Pavan Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Lv Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: And Sri Santi Pavan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 36(1)(vii)

…the turnover which was found to be correct and therefore, there is no error in the order of the Assessing Officer on this point. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has relied upon the following Judgments: CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto Ltd., [2011] 332 ITR 167 (i) (Del.HC); CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., [1993] 203 ITR 108 (ii) (Bom.HC); CIT vs. Vikas Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537 (iii) (Del.HC); M/s. Sarvana Developers, Bangalore vs. CIT-1, (iv) Bangalore Order of ITAT Bangalore in ITA.No.620/ Bang./2011 and ITA.No.48/Bang./2013 dated 06.09.2013; Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR (v) 83 (…

FATTESING PUNAJI DHABRE,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX – 2, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 368/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Fattesing Punaji Dhabre Pcit – 2, Nagpur Plot No. 132, Chandan Nagar, Post Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001. Maharashtra – 440009. [Pan: Bacpd6505Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Madhav Vichare, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54B

…aside the assessment order. The direction in the order under section 263 are not inconsonance with the issues in show casue notice under section 263. To support his various view on merit, the ld. AR relied upon the following decision:  CIT vs Sunbeam Auto [(332 ITR 167 (Del)]  CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay)] 8 Fattesing Punaji Dhabre  PCIT vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited [ITA 705/2017] [(2017) 398 ITR 8 (Del)]  Amira Pure Foods vs The PCIT [ITA 3205/Del/2017]  Narayan Tatu Rane vs ITO [ITA 2690/2691/Mum/2016 dated 06.05.2016]  Arun Kumar Garg HUF vs PCIT [ITA 3391/De…

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…upon to write an elaborate judgment giving detailed reasons in respect of each and every disallowance, deduction, etc., it is incumbent upon the Commissioner not to exercise his suo moto revisional powers unless supported by adequate reasons for doing so. v) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. “12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have gone through the records. The first issue that arises for our consideration is about the exercise of power by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. As noted above, the submission of learned coun…

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…upon to write an elaborate judgment giving detailed reasons in respect of each and every disallowance, deduction, etc., it is incumbent upon the Commissioner not to exercise his suo moto revisional powers unless supported by adequate reasons for doing so. v) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. “12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have gone through the records. The first issue that arises for our consideration is about the exercise of power by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. As noted above, the submission of learned coun…

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…upon to write an elaborate judgment giving detailed reasons in respect of each and every disallowance, deduction, etc., it is incumbent upon the Commissioner not to exercise his suo moto revisional powers unless supported by adequate reasons for doing so. v) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. “12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have gone through the records. The first issue that arises for our consideration is about the exercise of power by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. As noted above, the submission of learned coun…

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…upon to write an elaborate judgment giving detailed reasons in respect of each and every disallowance, deduction, etc., it is incumbent upon the Commissioner not to exercise his suo moto revisional powers unless supported by adequate reasons for doing so. v) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. “12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have gone through the records. The first issue that arises for our consideration is about the exercise of power by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. As noted above, the submission of learned coun…

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…upon to write an elaborate judgment giving detailed reasons in respect of each and every disallowance, deduction, etc., it is incumbent upon the Commissioner not to exercise his suo moto revisional powers unless supported by adequate reasons for doing so. v) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. “12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have gone through the records. The first issue that arises for our consideration is about the exercise of power by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. As noted above, the submission of learned coun…

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…upon to write an elaborate judgment giving detailed reasons in respect of each and every disallowance, deduction, etc., it is incumbent upon the Commissioner not to exercise his suo moto revisional powers unless supported by adequate reasons for doing so. v) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. “12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have gone through the records. The first issue that arises for our consideration is about the exercise of power by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. As noted above, the submission of learned coun…

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…upon to write an elaborate judgment giving detailed reasons in respect of each and every disallowance, deduction, etc., it is incumbent upon the Commissioner not to exercise his suo moto revisional powers unless supported by adequate reasons for doing so. v) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. “12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have gone through the records. The first issue that arises for our consideration is about the exercise of power by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. As noted above, the submission of learned coun…

STUDDS ACCESSORIES LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3570/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalkra, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Avikal Manu, CIT DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80J

…nsulting Singapore PTE Ltd.: [2024] 169 taxmann.com 441/ITA No. 103 of 2023 (Delhi) - PCIT vs Clix Finance India (P.) Ltd. [2024] 298 Taxman 217/ITA No. 1428 of 2018 (Delhi) - CIT vs Vikas Polymers: [2012] 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) - CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) - Olympic Decor LLP vs. PCIT: [2025] 174 taxmann.com 972/ITA No. 423 of 2024 (Ahd - Trib.) - PCIT vs. Kutch District Co. Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. [2025] 174 taxmann.com 868 (Gujarat) - HSBC Lifesciense Private limited vs PCIT: [2024] ITA No. 328 of 2023 (Ahd.- trib.) - Mahesh Reddy vs PCIT: [2024] 167 taxmann.com 297/ITA No. 13798936…

ANIL TUTEJA,FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 780/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…on various judicial precedents, including Faridabad Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) reported in (2009) 8 SCC 412, CIT Vs. Chet Ram (HUF) [Civil Appeal No.13053/2017 [@ SLP (C) No.751/2009, CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. [(1972) 88 ITR 192 (SC), CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del), and ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del). 9. The Ld. Pr. CIT considered the assessee's submissions but did not find merit in them. He held that by virtue of Finance Act, 2009, specific provisions were introduced in sections 145B(1), 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv) with effect from A.Y. 2011-12, which clearly mandate that interest rec…

KARAN PRATAP SINGH,SIRSA, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SIRSA, HARYANA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 761/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…on various judicial precedents, including Faridabad Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) reported in (2009) 8 SCC 412, CIT Vs. Chet Ram (HUF) [Civil Appeal No.13053/2017 [@ SLP (C) No.751/2009, CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. [(1972) 88 ITR 192 (SC), CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del), and ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del). 9. The Ld. Pr. CIT considered the assessee's submissions but did not find merit in them. He held that by virtue of Finance Act, 2009, specific provisions were introduced in sections 145B(1), 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv) with effect from A.Y. 2011-12, which clearly mandate that interest rec…

MUNISH KUMAR LEGAL HEIR LATE SH GURDEEP SINGH,VILL MANAKPUR, YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 5, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 754/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…on various judicial precedents, including Faridabad Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) reported in (2009) 8 SCC 412, CIT Vs. Chet Ram (HUF) [Civil Appeal No.13053/2017 [@ SLP (C) No.751/2009, CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. [(1972) 88 ITR 192 (SC), CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del), and ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del). 9. The Ld. Pr. CIT considered the assessee's submissions but did not find merit in them. He held that by virtue of Finance Act, 2009, specific provisions were introduced in sections 145B(1), 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv) with effect from A.Y. 2011-12, which clearly mandate that interest rec…

MADHU GREWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 603/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…on various judicial precedents, including Faridabad Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) reported in (2009) 8 SCC 412, CIT Vs. Chet Ram (HUF) [Civil Appeal No.13053/2017 [@ SLP (C) No.751/2009, CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. [(1972) 88 ITR 192 (SC), CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del), and ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del). 9. The Ld. Pr. CIT considered the assessee's submissions but did not find merit in them. He held that by virtue of Finance Act, 2009, specific provisions were introduced in sections 145B(1), 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv) with effect from A.Y. 2011-12, which clearly mandate that interest rec…

PARVEEN KUMAR,229,VILLAGE MANAKPUR-II,TEHSIL JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT PANCHKULA, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 576/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…on various judicial precedents, including Faridabad Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) reported in (2009) 8 SCC 412, CIT Vs. Chet Ram (HUF) [Civil Appeal No.13053/2017 [@ SLP (C) No.751/2009, CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. [(1972) 88 ITR 192 (SC), CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del), and ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del). 9. The Ld. Pr. CIT considered the assessee's submissions but did not find merit in them. He held that by virtue of Finance Act, 2009, specific provisions were introduced in sections 145B(1), 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv) with effect from A.Y. 2011-12, which clearly mandate that interest rec…

Showing 1–20 of 897 · Page 1 of 45

...