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 367,518 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.

Mrugesh Jitendrabhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1032/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT DR

Section 147Section 263

…every error in an assessment that invites exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act, but only orders that are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue." 9. The Delhi HC in the case of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto 332 ITR 167 (Del.) has made the following observations in this regard: “From the aforesaid definitions it is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because,…

M/S. Anabond Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-1

In the result, all the grounds appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

ITA 1625/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1625/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. Anabond Limited The Principal Commissioner Of Type-Ii, 36, Dr. V.S.I. Estate Income Tax-1 Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai Chennai-600041. [Pan: Aacca4158Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35Section 5Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्याययर्क सदस्य एवं श्री अमिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1625/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/s. Anabond Limited The Principal Commissioner of Type-II, 36, Dr. V.S.I. Estate Income Tax-1 Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai Chennai-600041. [PAN: AACCA4158Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri Nilay Baran S…

Asian Hotels (North) Limited, New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi-1, New Delhi

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

ITA 654/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember M/S. Asian Hotels (North) Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, 1A, Hotel Hyatt Regency, Delhi – 1. Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110 066. (Pan: Aaaca0125H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi-1 (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Pcit’) Dated 31.03.2021 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.09.2016 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.32,48,76,393/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143 (3)

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 438

…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…

Guljeet Kaur Johal, Chandigarh vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 379/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 379/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Guljeet Kaur Johal, Vs. Pcit-1, बनाम H.No. 107, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh Chandigarh 160019 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aklpj8345G अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2024 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…case, the order of the Ld. A.O. is not erroneous. However, it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We further rely upon the ratio of following judgements: (i) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. us CIT[2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del) (iii) ITO vs. DG Housing Projects ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del).” 5. During proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel of the Assessee has filed a written submission which is almost the same as it was filed before the ld. PCIT. The ld. Counsel has also argued on the line of written submission filed by him. 379-Chd-2024 – Guljeet Kaur Johal, Chandiga…

Gujarat Power Corporation Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground No. 4 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 976/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 263

…every error in an assessment that invites exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act, but only orders that are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue." 10. The Delhi HC in the case of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto 332 ITR 167 (Del.) has made the following observations in this regard: “From the aforesaid definitions it is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because,…

Kandy Gold Private Limited, Haryana vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2562/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S Kandy Gold Pcit, Rohtak Private Limited, R R Singla & Co., 106- Vs. 107, Maharaja Agrasen Shopping Complex, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Aadcr4278F

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

…se the order passed is not sustainable in law and the said finding must be recorded. The Commissioner of Income-tax cannot remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide whether the findings recorded are erroneous.. (iv) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi), provides that: “CIT cannot remand matter to the AO to decide whether findings recorded are erroneous. In case there are inadequate inquiry but not lack of inquiry, again the CIT must give and record the finding let the order/inquiry made is erroneous.” 7. The Learned authorized representative for revenue relied on order of Learned PCIT.…

M/S Model Exim, Kanpur vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 137/LKW/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriam/S. Model Exim Pcit (Central) V. 624-C, Defence Colony, 7/81-B, Tilak Nagar, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010. Kanpur. Pan:Aadfm6163H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Smt Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 29 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Smt Namita S. Pandey, CIT(DR)

Section 139Section 153CSection 153DSection 263Section 263(1)

…that he acted illegally or without applying his mind. The third question is, for the reasons discussed above, answered in the negative." 18. This aspect was also explained by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its judgment in the case of CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd (332 ITR 167). The relevant extracts of the judgment is as follows: 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 sub…

Ridhhi Siddhi Jwellers Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.135/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S.Riddhi Siddhi Jewellers The Pr.Cit-3 बनाम/ Pvt.Ltd. Ahmedabad – 380 015 V/S. 41/42/2, Khodiar Chowk Opp: Panchmukhi Hanmanji Temple Paldigam, Ahmedabad-390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafcr 1736 C अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…Act. 6.4. The PCIT suggested that the inquiry conducted by the AO was inadequate, especially with respect to verifying the buyers' identities or conducting forensic analysis of sales records. However, judicial precedents, such as, CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (332 ITR 167) [Delhi HC] and CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (335 ITR 83) [Delhi HC] make it clear that "inadequate inquiry" does not amount to "no inquiry." As long as the AO has applied his mind to the facts, even if the inquiry is not exhaustive, the order cannot be revised. The AO’s inquiry in this case was reasonable and sufficient, and the PCIT cannot challen…

Kiri Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 422/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 201Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 37(1)

…d every error in an assessment that invites exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act, but only orders that are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue." 10. In a decision rendered by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto 332 ITR 167 (Del.), wherein, while considering the distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry, the Hon'ble court held that where the AO has made inquiry prior to the completion of assessment, the same cannot be set aside u/s 263 on the ground of inadequate inquiry “12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side…

Faiveley Transport Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Hosur vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1598/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80

…3 would be open. In this regard, assessee relied on the following judicial precedents:- Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex SC 395 ITR 1 Virtusa Consulting Services (P.) HC-Madras 442 ITR 385 Ltd. Globus Infocom Ltd. HC-Delhi 369 ITR 14 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. HC-Delhi 332 ITR 167 Mohak Real Estate (P.) Ltd HC-Delhi 161 taxmann.com 388 Clix Finance India (P.) Ltd HC-Delhi 298 Taxman 217 Spectra Shares & Scrips (P) Ltd. HC-Andra 354 ITR 35 Pradesh Chemsworth (P.) Ltd. HC-Karnataka 119 taxmann.com 358 ITA No.1598 /Chny/2024 Shriram Properties Limited ITAT-Chennai 2023 (4) TMI 375 Cavinkare (P.) Ltd. ITAT-Chennai 149 taxma…

Sandeep Kumar, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Faridabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1545/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…se the order passed is not sustainable in law and the said finding must be recorded. The Commissioner of Income-tax cannot remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide whether the findings recorded are erroneous.. (iv) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi). CIT cannot remand matter to the AO to decide whether findings recorded are erroneous. In case there are inadequate inquiry but not lack of inquiry, again the CIT must give and record the finding let the order/inquiry made is erroneous. Sandeep Kumar vs. ITO 8. The Learned AR for Department of Revenue submitted that in para 18 Ld. PCIT…

Sandeep Kumar, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Faridabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1542/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…se the order passed is not sustainable in law and the said finding must be recorded. The Commissioner of Income-tax cannot remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide whether the findings recorded are erroneous.. (iv) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi). CIT cannot remand matter to the AO to decide whether findings recorded are erroneous. In case there are inadequate inquiry but not lack of inquiry, again the CIT must give and record the finding let the order/inquiry made is erroneous. Sandeep Kumar vs. ITO 8. The Learned AR for Department of Revenue submitted that in para 18 Ld. PCIT…

St.Joseph'S Educational Trust, Chennai vs. PCIT Central Chennai - 1, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1620/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1618 & 1619 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Institute Of Science & Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Technology Trust, Tax, No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central, Chennai -1 Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943B] आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1620 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Educational Trust, Vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Tax, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Central, Chennai -1 [Pan: Aamts 3888G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…the AO cannot be regarded as "erroneous" for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. For this proposition, the ld. Counsel for the assessee argued relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) and the co- ordinate bench of Chandigarh ITAT decision in the case of Manju Jain HUF vs PCIT in ITA No. 392/Chd/2022 dated 19.02.2024. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the PCIT cannot held that the order of the AO as "erroneous" for not following the order of the Madras High Court in the case of MAC Public Charitable…

St.Joseph'S Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Chennai vs. PCIT Central Chennai - 1, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1619/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

St.Joseph'S Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Chennai vs. PCIT Central Chennai - 1, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1618/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…the AO cannot be regarded as "erroneous" for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. For this proposition, the Id. Counsel for the assessee argued relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) and the co- ordinate bench of Chandigarh ITAT decision in the case of Manju Jain HUF vs PCIT in ITA No. 392/Chd/2022 dated 19.02.2024. Further, the Id. Counsel for the assessee argued that the PCIT cannot held that the order of the AO as "erroneous" for not following the order of the Madras High Court in the case of MAC Public Charitable…

Bhagat Marketing Pvt Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. PCIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, in light of the above observations and the judicial precedents on the subject, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 921/AHD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 263

…ers under Section 263 of the Act, but only orders that are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue." Bhagat Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2016-17 - 8– 9. In a decision rendered by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto 332 ITR 167 (Del.), wherein, while considering the distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry, the Hon'ble Court held that where the AO has made inquiry prior to the completion of assessment, the same cannot be set aside u/s 263 on the ground of inadequate inquiry: “12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other sid…

Infiben Avenues Ltd (Formerly Infibeam Incorporation Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…ers that are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue." Infibeam Avenues Ltd. (formerly known as Infibeam Incorporation Ltd.) vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 12– 14. In a decision rendered by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto 332 ITR 167 (Del.), wherein, while considering the distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry, the Hon'ble court held that where the AO has made inquiry prior to the completion of assessment, the same cannot be set aside u/s 263 on the ground of inadequate inquiry: “12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other sid…

Menzies Bobba Ground Handling Services Private Limited (Now Merged With Menzies Aviation Bobba(Bangalore)Private Limited), Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

ITA 226/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR appeared for Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT -DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80

…ssessment as well as reassessment proceedings, even if one were to say that such enquiry was inadequate, the same cannot be a ground for proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. By placing reliance on the decisions reported in CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi HC), Spectra Shares and Scrips Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (354 ITR 35) (AP HC) and Indu Fine Lands (P.) Ltd (45 taxmann.com 307) - ITAT, Hyderabad he submitted that there is a distinction between ‘lack of enquiry’ and ‘inadequate enquiry’. It is only in cases of 'lack of inquiry' that such a course of action under section 263 would be open. 7. On th…

Adani Wilmar Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 777/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 777/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 Adani Wilmar Limited, The Principal 3 Rd Floor, बनामVs Commissioner Of . Nr. Navrangpura Railway Income Tax-1, Crossing, Ahmedabad. Fortune House, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabca8056G

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ , अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ B ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 777/AHD/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 Adani Wilmar Limited, The Principal 3 rd Floor, बनामVs Commissioner of . Nr. Navrangpura Railway Income Tax-1, Crossing, Ahmedabad. Fortune House, Ahmedabad-380009. PAN: AABCA8056G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vartik Choksi, AR Revenue by : Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 02/09/20…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Gurugram vs. M/S Maharishi Markandeshwar University Trust

ITA/41/2021HC Punjab & Haryana24 Sept 2024

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Section 11(1)(a)Section 263

…ITA No. 41 of 2021 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 24.09.2024 1. ITA No. 41 of 2021 (O&M) Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Circle), Gurugram … Appellant versus M/s Maharishi Markandeshwar University Trust … Respondent 2. ITA No. 47 of 2021 (O&M) Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Circle), Gurugram … Appellant versus M/s Maharishi Markandeshwar University Trust … Respondent 3. ITA No. 57 of 2021 (O&M) Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Circle), Gurugram … Appellant versus M/s Maharishi Markandeshwa…