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.

Sushila Bhaurao Deshmukh, Amravati vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: ShriK.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salunke

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54BSection 54E

…o be distinguished from other cases (i) where there is enquiry but the findings are incorrect/erroneous; and (ii) where there is failure to make proper or full verification or enquiry. 15. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del), Delhi High Court was considering the aspect, when there isno proper or full verification, and it was held as under:- "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…

Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 329/PAT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…lowing cases in accordance with which also and in view of the facts and circumstances as stated above in this case no valid proceedings u/s 263 legally lied in this case. a) CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) b) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) Moreover, as stated above and in view of the facts and circumstances and in view of the decisions of different Courts of India including Apex Court and other Benches of I.T.A.T. it can be very well said that since the AO has taken one of the possible view and in view of the facts and in the circumstances as discussed above, it cannot be s…

Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 328/PAT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…lowing cases in accordance with which also and in view of the facts and circumstances as stated above in this case no valid proceedings u/s 263 legally lied in this case. a) CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) b) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) Moreover, as stated above and in view of the facts and circumstances and in view of the decisions of different Courts of India including Apex Court and other Benches of I.T.A.T. it can be very well said that since the AO has taken one of the possible view and in view of the facts and in the circumstances as discussed above, it cannot be s…

Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 327/PAT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…lowing cases in accordance with which also and in view of the facts and circumstances as stated above in this case no valid proceedings u/s 263 legally lied in this case. a) CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) b) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) Moreover, as stated above and in view of the facts and circumstances and in view of the decisions of different Courts of India including Apex Court and other Benches of I.T.A.T. it can be very well said that since the AO has taken one of the possible view and in view of the facts and in the circumstances as discussed above, it cannot be s…

Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 326/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…lowing cases in accordance with which also and in view of the facts and circumstances as stated above in this case no valid proceedings u/s 263 legally lied in this case. a) CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) b) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) Moreover, as stated above and in view of the facts and circumstances and in view of the decisions of different Courts of India including Apex Court and other Benches of I.T.A.T. it can be very well said that since the AO has taken one of the possible view and in view of the facts and in the circumstances as discussed above, it cannot be s…

Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 325/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…lowing cases in accordance with which also and in view of the facts and circumstances as stated above in this case no valid proceedings u/s 263 legally lied in this case. a) CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) b) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) Moreover, as stated above and in view of the facts and circumstances and in view of the decisions of different Courts of India including Apex Court and other Benches of I.T.A.T. it can be very well said that since the AO has taken one of the possible view and in view of the facts and in the circumstances as discussed above, it cannot be s…

Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 323/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…lowing cases in accordance with which also and in view of the facts and circumstances as stated above in this case no valid proceedings u/s 263 legally lied in this case. a) CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) b) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) Moreover, as stated above and in view of the facts and circumstances and in view of the decisions of different Courts of India including Apex Court and other Benches of I.T.A.T. it can be very well said that since the AO has taken one of the possible view and in view of the facts and in the circumstances as discussed above, it cannot be s…

Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 322/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…lowing cases in accordance with which also and in view of the facts and circumstances as stated above in this case no valid proceedings u/s 263 legally lied in this case. a) CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) b) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) Moreover, as stated above and in view of the facts and circumstances and in view of the decisions of different Courts of India including Apex Court and other Benches of I.T.A.T. it can be very well said that since the AO has taken one of the possible view and in view of the facts and in the circumstances as discussed above, it cannot be s…

Rashleela Enterprises Private Limited, Jaipur vs. The PCIT (Central), Jaipur

ITA 461/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153DSection 263

…ombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabrial India Ltd., reported in 203 ITR 108, has held that, “CIT cannot revise order merely because he disagrees with the conclusion arrived at by the ITO”. Further, in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., reported in 227 CTR 133, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court drew a distinction between “Lack of inquiry” and “inadequate enquiry…

Smt. Sharda, Harsud, Khandwa vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

ITA 263/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263Section 54B

…trial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) (ii) CIT (Central), Ludhiana v. Max India Ltd. reported in [2008] 166 Taxman 188 (SC) (iii) CIT v. Nirma Chemicals Works P. Ltd. 182 taxman 183 (Gujarat) (iv) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (v) DIT v. Jyoti Foundation reported in [2013] 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the AO has not utter a word in the assessment order regarding the inquiry conducted on this issue but the assessment order is a non- speaking order passed by the AO completely silent about the inquiry or examination and veri…

Shri Premnarayan, Harsud, Khandwa vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

ITA 262/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263Section 54B

…trial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) (ii) CIT (Central), Ludhiana v. Max India Ltd. reported in [2008] 166 Taxman 188 (SC) (iii) CIT v. Nirma Chemicals Works P. Ltd. 182 taxman 183 (Gujarat) (iv) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (v) DIT v. Jyoti Foundation reported in [2013] 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the AO has not utter a word in the assessment order regarding the inquiry conducted on this issue but the assessment order is a non- speaking order passed by the AO completely silent about the inquiry or examination and veri…

Narendra Kumar Agrawal, Burhanpur vs. PCIT Indore-1, Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 345/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninarendra Kumar Agrawal Pcit (1) 203, Ck Campus Aaykar Bhawan Bahadarpur Road Vs. Indore Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adapa0131B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

…Ld. AR has also relied upon following decisions: (i) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) (ii) CIT (Central), Ludhiana v. Max India Ltd. reported in [2008] 166 Taxman 188 (SC) (iii) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (iv) DIT v. Jyoti Foundation reported in [2013] 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) 3.2 Ld. AR has submitted that when the AO during the course of original assessment as well as reassessment proceedings made extensive inquiries and was satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee then the order passed by the AO cannot be held as erroneous…

International Seaport Dredging Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT - 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1597/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baram Som, IRS, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 71Section 79

…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…

Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Chennai vs. DCIT Intl Tax 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1319/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

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

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 239Section 263

…ase Forum Citation Page No. 1 Max India Ltd. Supreme Court 295 ITR 282 3 Max India Ltd. HC-P&H 268 ITR 128 5 3 Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. Supreme Court 243 ITR 83 7 4 Virtusa Consulting Services HC-Madras 442 ITR 385 12 (P.) Ltd. 5 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. HC-Delhi 332 ITR 167 22 6 Spectra Shares & Scrips HC-Andhra 354 ITR 35 33 (P.) Ltd. Pradesh 7 Saravana Developers HC-Karnataka 387 ITR 239 57 8 Chemsworth (P.) Ltd. HC-Karnataka 119 taxmann.com 65 358 9 Hari Iron Trading Co HC-Punjab & 263 ITR 437 69 Haryana 10 Shriram Properties Limited ITAT-Chennai 2023 (4) TMI 375 76 11 Cavinkare (P.) Ltd. ITAT-Chennai 149 taxmann…

Shri Bhanvarlal Champalal Kanuga, Unjha vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmeabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 95/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.95/Ahd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Bhanvarlal Champalal The Principal Cit बनाम/ Kanuga Range-3 C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate Pratyakash Kar Bhavan V/S. 512, Times Square – I Ahmedabad Opp. Ram Baug Bungalows Nr. Ravija Plaza Thaltej-Shilaj Road Ahmedabad – 380 059. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acmpk 0172 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan H. Shah, Ar & Shri Aman Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pushpendra Singh Chaudhary, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 29/03/2022 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit(A)” In Short] In Exercise Of The Shri Bhanvarlal Champalal Kanuga Vs. Pr.Cit-3 Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ketan H. Shah, AR &For Respondent: Shri Pushpendra Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ies Ltd. 5. Delhi High Court Decision in Sun Pharmaceuticals, [2016] 137 DTR 18. 6. Jammu and Kashmir High Court Decision in the case of Greenfields Commercials Pvt. Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 740. 7. Delhi High Court decision in the case of Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167. 8. Supreme Court decision in Shreeji Prints (P.) Ltd., [2021] 130 Taxmann.com 294. 9. Supreme Court decision in Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. [2022] 138 Taxmann.com 332. 5. The Ld.Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, stated that the PCIT has relied not only on the audit objection but has carried out independent inquiry…

Ved Prakash & Sons Liumbers Pvt Ltd, Karnal vs. Pr. CIT, Karnal

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4079/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganeh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

…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…

Kaivan Jitendrkumar Shah HUF, Ellisbridge Ahmedabad vs. PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 644/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2013-14 Kaivan Jitendrakumar Shah Huf, The Pr. Commissioner Of 27A, Anmol, Maharashtra Society, Vs Income Tax, Nr. Lions Hall, Mithakali, Ahmedabad-1, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan : Aahhk 9488 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sulabh Padshah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 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…

DCIT 14.1.1, Mumbai vs. Aadi Industries Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3215/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawaldcit – 14(1)(1), Vs. M/S.Aadi Industries Ltd 320/7, Siddhivinayak Room No. 432, 4Th Floor Housing Society, Aayakar Bhavan, Hingwals Lane, M.K.Road, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai -400020. Mumbai – 400075. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8256G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr Respondent By None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 07.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec143(3) R.W.S263 U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

…e of Gabrial India Ltd, reported in 203ITR 108, wherein, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held, "CIT cannot revise order merely because he disagrees with the conclusion arrived at by the ITO". We are also aware of the case of CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd, reported in 227 CTR 133, wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court drew a distinction between "Lack of 9 M/s Aadi Industries Ltd, Mumbai inquiry" and "inadequate enquiry" and held that in the case of inadequate enquiry, provisions under section 263 cannot be invoked. In our opinion, in the instant case, this is neither the case of inadequate enquiry nor lack of enquiry at th…

Guardian India Operations Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT 1, Chennai

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

ITA 842/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik ShahFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, IRS,CIT

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

…Such decision of the ITO cannot be held to be erroneous simply because in his order he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard." Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167, wherein the Court observed 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. Therefore, one has to see from the record as to whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditur…

Nirav Chandrakantbhai Bhalani, Bhavnagar vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1041/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1041/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year :2016-17 Nirav Chandrakantbhai The Pr.Cit,Ahmedabad-1 Bhalani बनाम/ Ahmedabad-380 015 Plot No.9, Vibhapark Society V/S. Adhewada, Bhavnagar Bhavnagar – 364 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bcipb 8197 E (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 27/03/2024 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-1 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Pcit” In Short] In Exercise Of His Revisionary Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” In Short) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Nirav Chandrakantbhai Bhalani Vs. The Pcit Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…at such issue of notice u/s 263 is change in opinion and also stated that the order passed by AO is with application of mind and, hence, not erroneous. He also placed reliance on following additional judicial pronouncements: 1. CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del-HC). 2. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC). 3. CIT Vs. Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 310 (All.). 4. Rajendrakumar Kantilal Patel Vs. PCIT – ITA No. 354/SRT/2018 (ITAT Surat). 5. Gabrial India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom). 2.7. The Ld.PCIT, however, set aside the order of the AO and directed the AO to pass a…