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 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

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

Also reported as

189 Taxmann 436227 CTR 13331 DTR 189 Taxmann.com 191

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.

Maninder Jeet Singh V.P.O. Udhamgarh, Jagadhri, Haryana vs. Prabhjot Kaur, PCIT, Panchkula

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

ITA 575/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

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

Ram Niwas, Fatehabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office, Sirsa Road, Industrial Area, Fatehabad

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

ITA 498/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

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

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

Rakesh Kumar, Jagadhri vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula

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

ITA 456/CHANDI/2024[2015-16 ]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026

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

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

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

Ashok Kumar Thakral, Jagadhri vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula

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

ITA 455/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

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

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

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

Kartar Singh, Fatehabad vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

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

ITA 335/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

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

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

Sh. Ram Lal, Fatehabad vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

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

ITA 332/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

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

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

Bimla Devi, Jagadhri vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

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

ITA 328/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

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

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

Paramjit Singh, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

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

ITA 327/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

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

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

Inder Kaur, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

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

ITA 326/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

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

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

Sh. Amarjeet Singh, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

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

ITA 325/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

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

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

Sh. Gurdeep Singh Mahal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

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

ITA 233/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

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

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

Sh. Devender Kumar, Yamuna Nagar vs. ITO, Ward -1, Yamuna Nagar

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

ITA 192/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

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

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

Sh. Baljinder Singh, Chandigarh vs. Pr.CIT, Chandigarh -1, Chandigarh

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

ITA 167/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

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

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

M/S. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. PCIT-4, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 434/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 263Section 43(1)

…invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act: :-8-: ITA. No:434/Chny/2025 Page No. in Name of the Case Forum Citation case law compilation Kwality Steel Suppliers SC 395 ITR 1 6 Complex Virtusa Consulting Services (P.) 35 HC – Madras 442 ITR 385 Ltd. 332 ITR 167 67 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. HC-Delhi Clix Finance India (P.) Ltd HC – Delhi 298 Taxman 217 78 Spectra Shares & Scrips (P) Ltd. HC-Andra Pradesh 354 ITR 35 89 113 Chemsworth (P.) Ltd. HC – Karnataka 119 taxmann.com 358 133 Shriram Properties Limited ITAT – Chennai 2023 (4) TMI 375 124 Thanthi Trust ITAT – Chennai 171 taxmann.com 470 154 Rajkumar Impex Pv…

Satender Kumar, Sarita Vihar vs. Income Tax Officer, Civic Centre

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 229/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Satender Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, 56, Ali Village, Sarita Vihar, Ward-28(1), New Delhi-110076 New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afxpk4995C Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1082434098(1) Dated 10.11.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

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

Braham Dutt Vashist, Gurgaon vs. ITO-Ward -1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/DEL/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 170/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Braham Dutt Vashist, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Ca M. R. Sahu, Ward-1(3), H. No. 651, 1St Floor, Sector-10A, Gurgaon-122001 Near G. D. Goenka Public School, Gurgaon-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Affpv0127D Assessee By: Sh. M. R. Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1083989454(1) Dated 23.12.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. M. R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

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

Ramavtar, Rewari vs. ITO, Rewari

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 140/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Ramavtar, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Anu Jain & Company, Ward-1(3), 272-R, First Floor, Near Palika Near Hindu High School, Complex, Model Town, Rewari, Model Town, Rewari, Haryana-123401 Haryana-123401 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Apdpa0001R Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1083470019(1) Dated 09.12.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

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

Rajesh Sahu, Gurgaon vs. Assessing Officer, Nfau

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 78/DEL/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Rajesh Sahu, Vs. Assessing Officer, H. No. 2A, Sahu Lane, New Delhi Phase-2, Ashok Vihar, Gurgaon Pan: Avaps9917M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manoj 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…

Daulat Ram, Rewari vs. ITO, Rewari (Jao), Rewari

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 112/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Daulat Ram, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O- Anu Jain & Co., First Rewari (Jao) Floor, Near Palika Complex, Model Town, Rewari Pan: Avppr6711D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Monoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)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…

Sri Ramaseva Bahusara Kshariya Co-Op. Society Limited, Shimoga vs. Pr. CIT, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 861/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Ramaseva Bahusara Kshariya Co-Op. Society Ltd. 01, Ramanna Setty Park Spm Road, Doddapete So Vs. Principal Cit Shimoga 577 202 Bengaluru-1 Karnataka Pan No :Aaajs0083P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Kiran D., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Kiran D., D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…in 'ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.', CIVIL APPEAL NO.2773/2020 DECIDED ON 17.07.2020. 8. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal principles, we may examine the facts of the case in hand. In 'CIT VS. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD.', 332 ITR 167, it has been held by Delhi High Court that Assessing Officer in the order of assessment is not required to give detailed reasoning in respect of each and every item of deduction and therefore, the question whether there has been an application of mind before allowing expenditure has to be examined from the record of the case. The question of lack…