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.

Garud Credit & Holding Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1270/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 35DSection 68

…ot be assumed. 32. Further this Tribunal in its order dated 03.08.2022 in the case of Salarpuria Properties Private Limited vs. PCIT reported in 197 ITD 490 relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in 227 CTR 133, wherein the issue of lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry was discussed at length and it was held that the jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be assumed in case of inadequate inquiry, conversely, jurisdiction u/s. 263 can be assumed only in case of lack of inquiry. 30 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited 33. We further fi…

Chandigarh Freight Carrier, Meerut vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed

ITA 500/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2015-16] Chandigarh Freight Carrier Vs. Pr. Cit 329, Uttam Nagar, Gupta Colony Ghaziabad Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250 002 Pan No. Aahfc 1874 H [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Manish Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 263Section 40

…ssessee has obtained the PAN of the payees and has thus complied with the provision of Section 194C(6) of the Act as mentioned above. The AO had made specific enquires and after satisfying himself took a plausible view. In the case of Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167 Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held as under: “…….therefore one has to see from the record whether was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. If there was an enquiry, even inadequate that would not by itself give occasion to the CIT to pass order u/s 263, merely because he has different opinion in t…

Shiv Laxmi Exports Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT, -5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 544/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…enquiry. We note that while passing this decision the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has referred to the decisions in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gabriel India Ltd. in [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom), Commissioner of Income-taxv. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. in [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Del) and ITO Vs D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 342 ITR 329(Del). Considering the above facts of the case, in our opinion, the order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We, therefore respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above decision, quash the order passed u/s 263 of the Act by allowing the appea…

Prabhu Kanimozhi, Erode vs. PCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner dated 14

ITA 350/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate-Erode) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan (CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 69B

…rआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय ,ी वी. दुगा2 राव, "ाियक सद3 एवं माननीय ,ी मनोज कुमार अ8वाल ,लेखा सद3 के सम:। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.350/Chny/2022 (िनधा2रण वष2 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Prabhu Kanimozhi Pr. CIT बनाम/ 228, Vasavi corner, Mysore Trunk Road, Coimbatore-1. Vs. Sathyamangalam, Erode – 638 402. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. ASWPK-8744-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar (Advo…

Mahaveer Prasad Jain, Jaipur vs. Principal CIT-2, New Central Revenue Building

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Avadesh Kumar (CIT) a

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

…igher authority having direct relevance on the case involving almost identical isssues wherein assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 have been negated & quashed , the gist and eloquent observation in them is elucidated as under :- CIT v Sunbeam Auto Ltd. ( 2010) 332 ITR 167 Therefore, one has to see from the record as to whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. One has to keep in mind the distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. If there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not, by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner to…

Dharmendra Mehta, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Avadhesh Kumar (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 201/JPR/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 cuke Dharmendra Mehta Principal Commissioner of Income 36 Kalyan Colony, Vs. Tax-2, Jaipur. Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AHQPM 7381 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.) jktLo dh…

Sh. Gurjinder Singh, Amritsar vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Amritsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT DR

Section 194CSection 263

…evised by CIT u/s 263. The courts even have held that if there is an enquiry even though inadequate that would not by itself give occasion to CIT to pass order u/s 263. Your honor’s kind attention is invited to the following judgments:- CIT V Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 (Del) “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 o…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax-2(1)Bhilai, Bhilai(Cg) vs. M/S Sms Shivnath Infrasstructure Pvt Ltd., Durg, Durg(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 87/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.87/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.107/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Vs Pr.Cit-2, Raipur Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv. & MukeshFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 36Section 80ISection 80l

…r of section 263 proceedings. Further, even if it is presumed that there was inadequate enquiry by the AO, still it is not sufficient for section 263 revision. Reliance placed on CIT Vs. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2010) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) Further, the CIT having issued a Show Cause Notice U/s 263 stating the reasons for invoking the section, has no authority to travel beyond the reasons issued in the Notice as has been done in the present case. Reliance placed on Geometric Software Solution Co. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 428 CIT Vs. Contimeteres Electricals Pvt. Ltd. (200…

M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Durg(Cg) vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 107/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv. & MukeshFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 36Section 80ISection 80l

V.L Jewellers, Delhi vs. Circle-49(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 836/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.836/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम V.L. Jewellers, Pr. Commissioner Of 2775, 1St Floor, Gali No. 20-21, Vs. Income Tax, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, Circle 49(1), New Delhi. Room No. 1202, 12, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadfv7989A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

…issible and if there is an enquiry no prejudice is caused to the Revenue and revision is not permissible for inadequate enquiry. Reliance was placed on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. NDTV, 262 CTR 604 and CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167. 10. The Ld. Counsel further submits that when two views are possible and the Assessing Officer adopts one of the possible view with which the Pr.CIT does not agree then that order would not be an order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for invoking the provisions of Section 263 I.T.A.No.836/Del/2022 of the Act. Reliance was placed o…

Ruchi Jain, M/S Darsh Marketing, Ratlam vs. PCIT-1, Indore

ITA 76/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

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

…by invoking revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act cannot impose his own understanding of the extent of inquiry. There were a number of judgments by various Hon’ble High Courts in this regard. 7.2 Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto 332 ITR 167 (Del.), made a 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 of the Act on the ground of inadequate inquiry. The relevant observation of Hon’ble Delhi High Court reads as under: “12. ….. There are jud…

Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer vs. CIT(Exemption)/ ITO (Exemption), Jaipur / Jodhpur

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 89/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…total lack of inquiry. Law is well settled that the Assessment order cannot be held to be erroneous simply on the allegation of inadequate enquiry. Unless there is an established case of total lack of enquiry. 4.1 Kindly refer CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del), wherein Delhi High Court was considering the aspect, when there is no proper or full verification, and it was held that one has to see from the record as to whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. Learned counsel for the assessee was held right in his submission that one has…

Shri Manmohan Singh Kapur, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 68/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…X vs. ARVIND JEWELLERS HIGH COURT OF GUJRAT (2002) 177 CTR (Guj) 546 : (2003) 259 ITR 502 ( Guj) (2002) 124 TAXMAN 615. (Page 146-150 of case laws index) b) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. HIGH COURT OF DELHI (2009) 227 CTR (Del) 133 : (2011) 332 ITR 167 : (2010) 189 TAXMAN 436 : (2009) 31 DTR 1 (Page 151-154 of case laws index) c) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DESIGN & AUTOMATION ENGINEERS ( BOMBAY) (P) LTD. HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (2008) 13 DTR (Bom) 145 : (2010) 323 ITR 632 : (2009) 177 TAXMAN. d) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MUNJAL CASTING HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA (2008) 2 DTR (P&H) 20…

Shri Sukhjit Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 67/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

Smt Harneet Kaur Juneja, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 66/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

M/S Shriram Properties Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT-Central1, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 431/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 431/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Ananthan, CA & Ms. Lalitha. RFor Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी मंजुनाथ. जी, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 431/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. Shriram Properties Principal Commissioner of Limited, v. Income Tax (Central), New No.9, Lakshmi Neela Rite Chennai -1. Choice Chambers, Bazullah Road, T-Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [PAN: AAFCS-5801-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : S…

Shri Sukhjinder Singh, Jalandhar vs. Prinicpal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 71/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR

Section 263

…facts and circumstances of the case. In the instance case inquiry on relevant issue has been made by AO, hence no action invited u/s 263. Our view gets support from the Judgement given by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of “CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd”, 332 ITR 167 (Del.) Where in it was held as under: - “One has to keep in mind the distinction between 'lack of inquiry' and 'inadequate inquiry'. If there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not, by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 merely because he has different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases o…

Delhivery Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1036/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1036/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Delhivery Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit-3, Plot No. 5, Sector-44, Central Revenue Building, Gurugram, Haryana-122002 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aapcs9575E Assessee By : Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Sh. M. Baranwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.03.2023

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 201Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. N. Prasad, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 1036/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Delhivery Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. CIT-3, Plot No. 5, Sector-44, Central Revenue Building, Gurugram, Haryana-122002 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAPCS9575E Assessee by : Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Shruti Khimta, AR Revenue by : Sh. M. Baranwal, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 05.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 16.03.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee agai…

Shri Chandubhai Ramjibhai Kaqthiriya, Jasdan, Dist. Rajkot-364490 vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 70/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT ] Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2017-18 Chandubhai Ramjibhai Pr. CIT, Kaqthiriya, 49 Motisheri, Rajkot-1 Juna Pipalia, Vs (Respondent) Jasdan, Rajkot-364490 PAN: BWRPK2156F (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. A.R. Revenue by: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 06-03-2023 Date of pronouncement : 14-03-2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2017-18, aris…

Shrimati. Lata Narang, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rajinder Kaur, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

…d not in case where the AO has made enquiries as seems appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the case inquiry on relevant issues made by AO hence no action invited u/s 263 and Reliance in this regard is placed on CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.). Where in it was held as under: - “One has to keep in mind the distinction between 'lack of inquiry' and 'inadequate inquiry'. If there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not, by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 merely because he has different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases o…