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.

M/S. Orbit Ceratiles P. Ltd., Morbi vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 103/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot01 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.103/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul RanuraFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.R

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

…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. 9.2 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…

Pramukh Realty, Junagadh vs. The PCIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 93/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.93/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul RanpuraFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.R

Section 142(1)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…

Sanjay Amrutrao Satav (HUF), Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 12(4), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesses stands allowed

ITA 200/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.200/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Amrutrao Satav Vs. Ito, Ward- 12(4), Pune. (Huf), Amrut Palace Bungalow, Gat No.12 Bhavadi Road Wagholi, Near Bhairavnath Mandir, Taluka Haveli, Pune- 412207. Pan : Aayhs1085F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Pooja Rander Revenue By : Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 4, Pune [‘The Pr.Cit’] Dated 31.03.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Smt. Pooja RanderFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena

Section 2Section 263Section 45Section 54Section 54B

…n to the Commissioner to exercise the power of revision u/s 263 as held by the Hon’ble 10 Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bombay) and followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) and in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 (Delhi). The relevant paragraphs of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (supra) are extracted hereunder :- “We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have gone through the records. The first issue that ari…

Varun Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 1963/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the matter. Accordingly he submitted that the initiation of revision proceedings is bad in law. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following case law:- (a) CIT vs. Development credit bank Ltd (2010)(323 ITR 206)(Bom) (b) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd (2011)(332 ITR 167)(Delhi) 9. We heard rival contentions and perused the record. The legal position with regard to the power of Learned CIT to invoke revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act. The scope of revision proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act was considered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. V CIT (32…

Jeevan Deep Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1439/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…e submitted that the impugned revision order is not sustainable merely because the Learned CIT (E) has got another view on these matters. 5.1 The Learned AR further submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd (332 ITR 167) that inadequate enquiry cannot be a reason for initiation of revision proceedings. He submitted that the view of the Ld CIT(E) that there was inadequate enquiry is also not correct. The learned A.R. also invited our attention to the decision rendered by co-ordinate bench in the case of Shri Narayan Tatu Rane (ITA 5 Jeevan Deep Trust No.2690 &…

Vanraj Protein Industries, Junagadh vs. The PCIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 104/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot29 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.104/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul RanuraFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.R

Section 142(1)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…

Mayur Khara, Yavatmal vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur

In the result, Both the appeals of above mentioned assessee’s are allowed

ITA 64/NAG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mayur Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8869 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Amit Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8868 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Above Mentioned Assessees Against Two Different Orders Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Nagpur- 2 Dated 17-02-2017 & 16-02-20217 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Respectively. The Grounds Of Raised By The Above Mentioned Assessees Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…etween 'Lack of enquiry' and 'inadequate enquiry'. It is for the AO to decide the extent of enquiry to be made as it is his satisfaction as what is required under law. Reliance is placed on the decision of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxman 436/[2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi), wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that if there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself, give occasion to the Ld. PCIT to pass order u/s 263 of the Act, merely because the Ld. PCIT has a different opinion in the matter and that only in cases where there is no enquiry, the power u/s 263 of the Act can be exercis…

Genpact Consulting (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (Earlier Known As 'Headstrong Consulting Pte. Ltd.'), Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1) Int. Tax., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 501/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 2(47)Section 263Section 45Section 47

…t of the Assessing Officer to disclose his satisfaction in the Assessment Order passed thereon. Thus, this objection on the part of the Revenue cannot be accepted.” 29. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto reported in 332 ITR 167 has held as held as under: “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 CIT under s. 263 of the IT Act. As noted above, the submission of learned counsel for the Revenue was that while passi…

Sandip Kanubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 104/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 104/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2017-2018 Sandip Kanubhai Patel, Principal Commissioner Of Avirat House, Vs. Income Tax-3, Nr. Science City, Ahmedabad. Sola Science City Road, Sola, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT. D.R

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 54B

…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. 8.2 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…

Shri Purav Dahyabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 364/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 364/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2015-2016 Purav Dahyabhai Patel, Pr. C.I.T-1, 10, Vrundavan Bungalows Part-3, Vs. Ahmedabad. Thaltej-Shilaj Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380059. Pan: Bejpp7846B

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT. D.R

Section 10(38)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…wers under section 263 of the Act cannot impose his own understanding with respect to the extent of inquiry. There were a number of judicial precedent by various Hon’ble High Courts in this regard. 9.2 The 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 A.Y. 2015-16 5 inadequate inquiry. The relevant observation of Hon’ble Delhi High Court reads as under: “12. ……

Lalitadevi N. Tibrewala, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 318/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 318/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Lalitadevi N. Tibrewala, Pr. Commissioner Of 6, Professor Colony, Vs. Income Tax, Nr. Vijay Cross Roads, Ahmedabad-5 Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aappt0073M

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT, D.R with Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 263Section 54

…me Tax 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 High Courts in this regard. 10.2 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…

Radiant Life Care Mumbai P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 896/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aagcr 9198 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 56(2)

…56 (2)(viib) and depreciation on deposit of ₹25 crore. ITA Nos. 895 & 296/M/2021 27 Radiant Life Care Mumbai 7.19 Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi), wherein it is held that since the enquiry was specifically held with reference to the expenditure on dies by the AO in original assessment proceedings, therefore invoking the revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 was not justified with respect to said expenditure. 7.20 In another case relied upon by the Ld. counsel of the assessee…

Radiant Life Care Mumbai P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 895/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 56(2)

Sun Direct Tv Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1320/CHNY/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 May 2022AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1320/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S.Sun Direct Tv Private Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Murasoli Maran Towers, Income Tax, 73, Mrc Nagar Main Road, Non-Corporate Circle-20, Mrc Nagar, Chennai-600 028. Chennai. Pan: Aaics 7671L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. S.Palani Kumar, CITFor Respondent: 15.03.2022

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

…er is inadequate. This legal principle is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 108 and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del). Therefore, we are of the considered view that the PCIT has erred in revising the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.263 of the Act on the ground that assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous, insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 13. In this case, assessment order passed by t…

Cygnus Vanijya Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-11(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 26Section 263

…in holding that there was lack of 5 A.Y. 2015-2016 Cygnus Vanijya Private Limited inquiry and the same is factually incorrect. Reliance as placed on the following decisions:- (i) CIT Vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (S.C.); (ii) CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.); (iii) CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 (Del); (iv) CIT Vs. Vikas Polymers, 236 CTR 476/194 Taxman 57; (v) Hari Iron Trading Co. Vs. CIT, 263 ITR 437 (P&H); (vi) Malabar Industrial Co, Ltd. Vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (S.C.); (vii) CIT Vs, Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. 331 ITR 192(Del.); (viii) CIT Vs. International Travel Hous…

M/S Rajendra and Ursula Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

ITA 57/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Mehar (CIT)

Section 263Section 5

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’A’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM deys’k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 56/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2016-17 cuke M/s Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Principal Commissioner of Vs. Development Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Income Tax-2, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAGCR 4665 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 57/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :20…

M/S Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Developement Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

ITA 56/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Mehar (CIT)

Section 263Section 5

Aditya Gopal Export Private Limited, Chennai vs. Pr. Commr. Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.132/Rjt/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 M/S Aditya Gopal Exports Pvt. The Principal Commissioner Ltd. Vs. Of Income-Tax, No.6/20, Rukmani Street, Jamnagar West Mambalam, Chennai-600033. (Tamilnadu) Pan: Aacca3014H

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Oza, CIT. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ome Tax 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 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…

Rajiv Jain, Muzaffarnagar vs. Pr.CIT, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 530/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2015-16

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

…s. ITO 100 ITD 173 (Mum) 8. Dhruv n. Shah Vs. DCIT (2004) 82 TTJ (Mum.) 369 9. Ashok Maniklal Thakkar Vs. ACIT, 97 ITD 361 (Ahd.) 6 ITA No. 530/Del./2021 AY : 2015-16 10. CIT Vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd., 372 ITR 302 (Bom.) 11. CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Del.) 7. Learned Departmental Representative submitted, in course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer has not enquired into all the issues for which the assessment was selected for scrutiny. He submitted, the Assessing Officer did not take the enquiry to its logical end and has only made half-baked enquiry. He submitted, by virtue…

Kavita Jayeshkumar Kotak, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT (Central), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/AHD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nupur Shah, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Madhu, CIT-D.R

Section 10(38)Section 114Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 263

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member ITA No. 54 /Ahd/2021 Assessment Year 2014-15 Kavita Jayeshkumar PCIT(Central), Kotak, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad PAN: AHPPK2082E Vs (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Nupur Shah, A.R. & Shri Dhiren Shah, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Sushil Kumar Madhu, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing : 01-03-2022 Date of pronouncement : 28-04-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed by the assessee against…