How many judgments cite CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.?

897 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (332 ITR 167), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 57(iv), Section 56(2)(viii), Section 10(37).

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.

332 ITR 167High Court2011#54 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 367,515 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 263 Section 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 145b section 45(5)section 145a(b)section 57(iv)inadequate enquiry section 56(2)(viii)lack of enquiry section 10(37)enhanced compensation malabar industrial section 263(1)section 145a

Judgments citing CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.

Shiv Narayan, Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Haryana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2196/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Shiv Narayan, Vs. Dcit, H. No. 137, V & Po, Circle-3(1), Shikohpur, Haryana Gurgaon, Haryana Pan:Akfpn6891B (Appellant) (Respondent)

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 4 | P a g e 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 Ac…

Ashokkumar Projects India Pvt. Ltd., Porbandar vs. The Pr. CIT, Jamnagar

In the result, appear of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.83/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Ashokkumar Projects India P. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, 4Th Floor, Manek Centre, P.N. Cholera Arcade, M.G. Road Opposite, Bhaveshwar Mahadev Marg, Jamnagar - 361008 Temple, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamca5891Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194CSection 263Section 40

…ITANo.83/RJT/2024 Ashok Kumar Project India P. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR.ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.83/RJT/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Ashokkumar Projects India P. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Ltd. Income Tax, 4th Floor, Manek Centre, P.N. Cholera Arcade, M.G. Road Opposite, Bhaveshwar Mahadev Marg, Jamnagar - 361008 Temple, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAMCA5891Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, AR Res…

Genus Power Infrastructures Limitted, Noida vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax(Centeral), Lucknow

ITA 74/LKW/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kumar, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…of section 263 of the Act. The finding of the Ld. CIT that there was lack of enquiry, is factually incorrect, the Ld. AR submitted. Inter alia, the Ld. AR relied upon the decisions in CIT vs. Max India Limited 295 ITR 282 (S.C.); CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Limited 332 ITR 167 (Del.); CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Del.); CIT vs. Vikas Polymers 236 CTR 476/194 Тахтап 57; Hari Iron Trading Company vs. CIT, 263 ITR437 (P&H); Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs.CIT,243 ITR 83(S.C.); CIT vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. 331 ITR 192 (Del.); CIT vs. International Travel House Lid. 194 Тахтап 324; CIT vs. DLF Powe…

Sant Kumar Suri, Nurpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 336/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

…on to the Assessing Officer to conduct further enquiries without a finding that the order of Assessing Officer is erroneous - Such finding that the order is erroneous is a condition precedent for exercise of jurisdiction under s.263. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del) 9. Revision-Erroneous and prejudicial order-Lack of proper enquiry There is a distinction between "lack of enquiry" and "inadequate enquiry"-If there is an enquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the CIT to pass order under s.263, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter-Such a course of action is…

Nimitaya Hotel & Resort Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1832/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2019-20 A.Y. 2018-19

Section 24Section 263Section 263(1)

…n taken by the AO in the assessment order the same cannot be held to be prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. In support of his contention Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Del.), which has been duly considered by us and found to be applicable in the case in hand having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, when the claims of the assessee have been duly examined during original assessment proceedings and also the reassessment proceedings under Section 153A of the Act itself, there could have be…

Sandee Impex, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-29(1), New Delhi

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1830/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2019-20 A.Y. 2018-19

Section 24Section 263Section 263(1)

Vivaa Tradecom Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 328/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal"नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vs. Vivaa Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., Principal Commissioner Of Shade No. 20, Shree Shhakti Income-Tax-4, Estate & Workhouse, Piplaj Ahmedabad Pirana Road, Saijpur-Gopalpur, Ahmedabad-302405 [Pan : Aaica 3968 J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क! तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क! तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12.02.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal:

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘C’ अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vs. Vivaa Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., Principal Commissioner of Shade No. 20, Shree Shhakti Income-tax-4, Estate & Workhouse, Piplaj Ahmedabad Pirana Road, Saijpur-Gopalpur, Ahmedabad-302405 [PAN : AAICA 3968 J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Mehta, AR Revenue by : Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR सुनवाई क! तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क! तार"ख /D…

Sahara India Mutual Benefit Coy vs. DCIT CC VI

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1831/DEL/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2019-20 A.Y. 2018-19

Section 24Section 263Section 263(1)

Ankur Goyal, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2524/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 263

…s of facts arrived at by the Tribunal do not warrant interference of this court. That being the position, the present case would not be one of "lack of inquiry" and, even if the inquiry was termed inadequate, following the decision in Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (page 180) : "that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter." No substantial question of law arises for our consideration." 24. In Ashish Rajpal as well, this Court was of the view that the fact that a query was raised during…

Horizon Dwellings Private Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

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

ITA 77/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriahorizon Dwellings Pvt Ltd V. Pcit, Bareilly, Navjeevan Appartments, Income Tax Department, Opposite Parag Factory, Bareilly (Up)-243001. Badaun Road, Kargaina, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aacch6839F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ld the action taken by him under Section 263 of the Act.” Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. — [2012] 28 taxmann.com 273 (Delhi) “10. This Court is conscious that an earlier bench of this Court in CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd, (2011) 332 ITR 167, had held that if there is some enquiry by the A.O. in the original proceedings even if inadequate that cannot clothe the Commissioner with jurisdiction under Section 263 merely because he can form another opinion. It was emphasized here that the notice and questionnaire given to the assessee which were duly replied, were evidence of full and due…

Shri Chetan Sharma, Kanpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur

In the result, both appeals are allowed

ITA 343/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 153DSection 263

…ld that the assumption of revisional jurisdiction can be justified only on the basis of materials indicating that the order of the assessment was payable of erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the case of CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd (011) 332 ITR 167 (Del): it was held by Hon'ble High Court that there are judgments galore laying down the principle that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order is not required to give detailed reason in respect of each and every item of deduction, etc. It was further held that one has to keep in mind the distinction between “lack of inquiry” and “inadequat…

Shastri Lal, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3918/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Sh. Rajat Chaudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

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…

Dilbag Singh, Rohtak vs. Income Tax Officer, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3909/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

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…

Sanguine Media Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT-3, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly- allowed

ITA 936/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 936/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 Sanguine Media Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Plot No.135A, 1St Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax - 3, Chandran Nagar Main Road, Chennai. Chrompet, Chennai – 600 044. Pan: Aaecs 2217C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…quiries on the issue of accommodation entry which was denied by the assessee and no further evidence was brought on record to establish the said alleged transaction. It was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. - (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) that one has to see from the records as to whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure and one has to keep in mind the distinction between ‘lack of inquiry’ and ‘inadequate inquiry’. If there was any enquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass order under Section 2…

Rishab Jhunjhunwala, Delhi vs. AO Ward-1(1), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 960/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Sh Rishab Jhunjhunwala Vs Pcit, Delhi-1 E-28 Geetanjali Enclave, Delhi Pan No. Aeupj8955M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

…ovisions of section 263 of the Act were not applicable to the instant case and, therefore, the commissioner was not justified in setting aside the assessment order." 15. We find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Sunbeam Auto reported in 332 ITR 167 has held that the Assessing officer in the assessment order is not required to give detailed reason in respect of each and every item of deduction, etc. Whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question has to be seen. If there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the CIT to…

Sunitha, Coimbatore vs. PCIT -1, Coim, Batore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2013/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, IRS, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 69

…s of facts arrived at by the Tribunal do not warrant interference of this court. That being the position, the present case would not be one of "lack of inquiry" and, even if the inquiry was termed inadequate, following the decision in Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (page 180) : "that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter." No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. 24. In Ashish Rajpal as well, this Court was of the view that the fact that a query was raised during t…

Mulkh Raj Mehta and Sons HUF, Hisar vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2406/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2406/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Mulkh Raj Mehta & Sons Huf, Vs Pr. Cit, 374, Sector-15A, Hisar, Rohtak, Haryana-125001 Haryana-124001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaihm9927L Assessee By : Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, Ca & Sh. Surajh Bhan Nain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Order Of Pcit, Rohtak Dated 18.03.2024 In Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1062878615(1), In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, CA &For Respondent: Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 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. 3,9…

Nishant Choudhary, Fatehabad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Fatehabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2863/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2863/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Nishant Choudhary, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O Sh. Vijay Choudhary, Choudhary Ward-1, Niwas, G.T. Road (Opp. Ratia Fatehabad, Crossing), Fatehabad, Haryana-125050 Haryana-125050 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aempc0965Q Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A)-5, Ludhiana Dated 13.02.2019 In Case No. 255/Rot/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2018-19, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 263Section 28

…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 4 Nishant Choudhary (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 Acqui…

Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT, Corp Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N.V.Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

…), the Court considered the scope of section 263 of the Act and after noting the decision in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 71 Taxman 585/203 ITR 108 (Bom.) and the decision of the High Court of Delhi in CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxman 436/[2011] 332 ITR 167 held that the power exercised under section 263 of the Act was on account of mere change of opinion. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:- 5. The Commissioner had issued show cause notice dated 12-3-2015 under section 263 of the Act. In the show cause notice, the Commissioner states that the figures mentioned by the assessee w…

Chaitalee Sachin Deokar, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, -It -2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2806/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69BSection 69C

…dingly it was contended that the revision proceedings initiated u/s 263 of the Act is not valid in law. The assessee relied upon following case law in support of his contentions:- (i) CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd 9203 ITR 108)(Bom) (ii) CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd (332 ITR 167)(Delhi) (iii) CIT Vs. Vikas Polymers (341 ITR 537)(Delhi) (iv) CIT Vs. Arvind Jeweller (259 ITR 502)(Guj) 5.The Ld Pr. CIT was not convinced with the contentions of the assessee and accordingly held that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Accordingly he set aside the assessment orders of both the years…