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.

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 167)

Ashok Irappa Bannur, Bagalkot vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Belagavi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 903/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar

Section 143(3)Section 194C(6)Section 263Section 4o

…in the present facts of the case. The assessee places reliance on the below mentioned cases which enunciate the limitations of section 263 of the Income Tax Act: A. MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD. Vs CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 [SC] B. CIT Vs SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. [2011] 332 ITR 167 [DEL] Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/ s. Sun Beam Auto Limited, reported in 332 ITR 167 held as follows: “……therefore one has to see from the record whether there 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 occ…

Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd, Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 195/CTK/2019[204-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…rder stated that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. reported in [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) distinguished the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi). However, this finding of the Ld. PCIT is not factually correct and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. still holds goods wherein a distinction was laid down between 'lack of inquiry' and 'inadequate inquiry' and it was held as under: 79 ITA Nos.193-195/CTK/2019 "12. We have considered th…

M/S- Sbep-Gril(Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 194/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…rder stated that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. reported in [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) distinguished the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi). However, this finding of the Ld. PCIT is not factually correct and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. still holds goods wherein a distinction was laid down between 'lack of inquiry' and 'inadequate inquiry' and it was held as under: 79 ITA Nos.193-195/CTK/2019 "12. We have considered th…

M/S- Rawat Balaji (Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Prilncipal, CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 193/CTK/2019[204-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…rder stated that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. reported in [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) distinguished the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi). However, this finding of the Ld. PCIT is not factually correct and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. still holds goods wherein a distinction was laid down between 'lack of inquiry' and 'inadequate inquiry' and it was held as under: 79 ITA Nos.193-195/CTK/2019 "12. We have considered th…

M/S Moral Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 341/LKW/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Moral Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. V. Pr. Cit-2 Mata Parvati Apartment Lucknow Katen Lene Wali Chowk Kalyan East, Maharashtra Tan/Pan:Aagcm8051Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Smt. Sheela Chopa, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 06 10 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 12 2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Sheela Chopa, CIT (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 263Section 263(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW [Through Virtual Hearing] BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Moral Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT-2 Mata Parvati Apartment Lucknow Katen Lene Wali Chowk Kalyan East, Maharashtra TAN/PAN:AAGCM8051Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Smt. Sheela Chopa, CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 06 10 2021 Date of pronouncement: 14 12 2021 O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the Pr. CIT- 2, Lucknow, dated…

Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Burla vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 141/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.141/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Jagruti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, Dated 21.04.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That The Notice Issued & Order Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sambalpur (Pr. Cit) Is Unjustified, Arbitrary, Excessive, Contrary To Evidences & Bad In Law. 2. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Pr. Cit Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Assuming Jurisdiction In Issuing The Notice & Passing The Order U/S.263 Of The Act, More So When The Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Act Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. 3. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Pr. Cit Has Further Erred In Law & In Facts In Assuming Jurisdiction In Issuing The Notice & Passing The Order U/S.263 Of The Act, As The Subject Matter Of Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Act Were Duly Considered By The Ld. Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings & The Assessment Order Was Passed After Making All The Enquiries & Verification & With Due Application Of Mind.

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ, कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.141/CTK/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Vs Pr.CIT, Sambalpur Jagruti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 PAN No. : AABCM 5188 P (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.S.Poddar, AR िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR सुनवाई की तािीख / Date of Hearing : 29/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date of Pronouncement : 10/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: T…

M/S. Flair Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2286/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2286/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Flair Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 227, Okhla Indls. Estate, Central Circle-8, Phase-3, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacf1183A Assessee By : Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, Fca Revenue By : Sh. Javed Akhatar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Javed Akhatar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)

…c reference to the NSEL losses. Further, the issue of allowability and claim of bad debts has 8 Flair Exports Pvt. Ltd. been adjudicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. vs. CIT 323 ITR 397 and also in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. The only reason for resorting to provisions of Section 263 by the ld. PCIT was that the CBDT has directed not to allow the bad debts in view of the recovery proceedings out of liquidation. The CBDT has also informed the field authorities that 10% of the outstanding amounts have already been received by th…

Troikaa Pharmaceuticlas Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 55/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-D.R

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

…roikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. The Pr. CIT 8. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 9. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) 10. Commissioner of Income Tax. V. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 11. CIT vs. Ms. Bina Indrakumar (2015) 61 taxmann.com 11 (2015) 370 ITR 552 12. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (HC Bombay) 13. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vikas Polymers (2003) 341 ITR 537 (HC Delhi) 7.1 During the course of appellate proceedings before us on the issue of depreciation on assets it was submitted tha…

M/S. Aditya Birla Insurance Brokers Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 935/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

…ction under section 263 of the Act as per extant provisions of the Act. That the issue of inadequate, improper inquiry vis-a- vis lack of inquiry has already been settled in the following case laws :- • CIT Vs. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bombay) • Sunbeam Auto (332 ITR 167) (Delhi) • Sir Dorbaji Tata Trust (TS-684-ITAT-2020) • Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO (TS-290-ITAT-2016) 8. Thereafter learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that the issue of CSR expenses claim under section 80G of the Act has also settled by the following case laws :- • M/s. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd. (TS-331-ITAT-2020) (Bang) • FNF India…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 94/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.92, 93 & 94/SRT/2021 A.Y: 2014-15 to 2016-17 (Hearing in Virtual Court) M/s.Amrut Sarovar, The Principal Commissioner Block No. 514-515, of Income Tax – Central, Vs. Opposite Girnar Hotel, Surat. At & PO Kather, Taluka-Kamrej, Surat. PAN: ABGFA 2065 C Applicant /assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 21.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 93/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.92, 93 & 94/SRT/2021 A.Y: 2014-15 to 2016-17 (Hearing in Virtual Court) M/s.Amrut Sarovar, The Principal Commissioner Block No. 514-515, of Income Tax – Central, Vs. Opposite Girnar Hotel, Surat. At & PO Kather, Taluka-Kamrej, Surat. PAN: ABGFA 2065 C Applicant /assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 21.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 92/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.92, 93 & 94/SRT/2021 A.Y: 2014-15 to 2016-17 (Hearing in Virtual Court) M/s.Amrut Sarovar, The Principal Commissioner Block No. 514-515, of Income Tax – Central, Vs. Opposite Girnar Hotel, Surat. At & PO Kather, Taluka-Kamrej, Surat. PAN: ABGFA 2065 C Applicant /assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 21.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act…

Pawansut Media Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT - 7, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR

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

…which powers under Section 263 of the Act can be invoked to interdict an assessment order. The observations made in this behalf, by the Division Bench of this Court, in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., [2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) / [2011 ] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) being apposite, are extracted hereafter. “12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have gone through the records. The first issue that arises for our consideration is about the exercise of power by the Commissioner of Income - tax under section 263 of the 22 ITA.No.534/Del./2021 Pawansut Media Serv…

Kapil Mehta, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central)-3, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 533/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: The Assessing Officer

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 263(1)

…m 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. Kapil Mehta vs. PCIT 15. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del), Delhi High Court was considering the aspect, when there is no 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-t…

Auto Engineers Services Centre, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1104/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Roy Chauduri, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…, it is for the Assessing Officer to decide the extent of inquiry to be made and it is his satisfaction which is required under the law. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in (2010) reported in 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) has held that if there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would by itself not give occasion to the Commissioner to pass order u/s 263 of the Act merely because the Commissioner had a different opinion in the matter. It is a settled law that the Ld. Pr.CIT cannot pass the order u/s 263 on the ground that thorough inquiry should have be…

M/S. Jns Instruments Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1479/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year : 2011-12 Jns Instruments Ltd. Vs. Pr. Cit Gi-48, G.T. Karnal Road Central -2, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Pan Aaacj7034Q New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 263Section 92C

…to 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 v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del), Delhi High Court was considering the aspect, when there is no proper or full verification, and it was held as under:- 14 JNS Instruments Ltd. vs Pr.CIT “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 p…

Sukhdev Chayal, Bikaner vs. PCIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ngs in this regard find support in the following judgments: DIT vs Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388 (Del) ITO vs DG Housing Projects Ltd reported in 343 ITR 329 CIT vs Ashish Rajpal reported in 320 ITR 674 (Del) CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs R.K. Construction Co. reported in 313 ITR 65 (Guj) For these reasons, we are of the considered view that the assessment order is not the result of non-application of mind or any inadequate enquiry. We are also of the considered opinion that while passing the assessment order the AO did not follow a view which can be said to be 'uns…

Rameshwar Prasad Shringi, Gumanpura vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 10/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (Pr. CIT)

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

…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 foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 10/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2016-17 cuke Rameshwar Prasad Shringi Pr. CIT, Vs. 1-B 1-B, Kotri Road Udaipur Gumanpura, Kota, Rajasthan LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AGWPS2257F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) & Sh. Devang Gargieya (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls…

Aditi Aggarwal, Ambala Cantt vs. Pr.CIT, Panchkula

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 21/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…5, Ahmedabad in ITA No. 1026/Ahd/2018 dt. 25/09/2019 (Ahd Trib). • CIT Vs. Smt. K.C. Agnes And Others [2003] 262 ITR 354 (Kerala) • M/s Colors Textiles Limited Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1514/Chd/2017 (Chd Trib) order dt. 05/12/2018 • CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del) • ITO Vs. D.G. Housing Project Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del) • City Beautiful Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 554/Chd/2017 (Chd Trib) order dt. 04/10/2018 • PCIT Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. [2017](9) TMI 529 (Del) • CIT Vs. Anil Kumar reported in 335 ITR 83 (Del) • CIT Vs. Atlas Cycle Industries reported in 180 ITR 319…

M/S Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1070/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2013-14 M/s. Karnataka State Seeds Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Corporation Ltd., Income Tax, ‘Beeja Bhavan’, Bellary Road, Bengalurlu-4, Hebbal, Bangalore – 560 024. Bengaluru. PAN: AACCK 1985D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri L. Bharath, CA Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 02.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 20.09.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by th…

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.

What is CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.

Ashok Irappa Bannur, Bagalkot vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Belagavi

Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd, Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

M/S- Sbep-Gril(Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

M/S- Rawat Balaji (Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Prilncipal, CIT, Sambalpur

M/S Moral Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Lucknow

Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Burla vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur

M/S. Flair Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Troikaa Pharmaceuticlas Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

M/S. Aditya Birla Insurance Brokers Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -2, Mumbai

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

Pawansut Media Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT - 7, New Delhi

Kapil Mehta, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central)-3, New Delhi

Auto Engineers Services Centre, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

M/S. Jns Instruments Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

Sukhdev Chayal, Bikaner vs. PCIT-1, Jodhpur

Rameshwar Prasad Shringi, Gumanpura vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

Aditi Aggarwal, Ambala Cantt vs. Pr.CIT, Panchkula

M/S Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Bangalore