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. Origami Cellulo Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 394/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR-III)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92A(2)Section 92C

…rt Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT. Reliance was also placed on the following decisions:- Eveready Industries India Ltd. v. PCIT (ITA No.805/Kol/2019) Malabar Industries Ltd. v. CUT [20000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) CIT v. J.L. Morrison (I) Ltd. 366 ITR 593 CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 Page 5 of 31 8. The ld. AR accordingly prayed that the impugned order of the PCIT should be quashed. 9. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that apart from the reasons mentioned in para 2 hereinabove for scrutiny, there were payments to related persons specified in section 40A(2)(b) duly reported in audit report and ITR filed by the assesse…

Annu Agrotech Private Limited, Kota vs. Pr.CIT, Udiaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Cuke Annu Agrotech Private Limited, Pr.Cit, S-47/48, S-47/48, Vs. Udaipur. Commercial Shops, Ipia 324005, Rajasthan, India. Pan No.: Aagca 5903 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Mahendra Gargieya(Adv.) & Shri Devang Gargieya (Itp) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15 /09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

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

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…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 21 ITA 09/JP/2021_ Annu Agrotech P Ltd. Vs Pr.CIT enquiry. Kindly refer CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) (DPB 10-20), 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 is right in his submission that…

M/S Dsiidc Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-03, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2674/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801Section 80I

…lymers [2010] 194 Taxmann 57 (Delhi) (HC) 4. Salora International Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2005] 2 SOT 705 (Delhi) (Trib.) 5. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) 6. CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills [2008] 296 ITR 238 (P&H) (HC) 7. CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (HC) 8. CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. 333 ITR 547 (Delhi) (HC) 9. Surinder Kumar Jain v. ITO, (Delhi Trib.), I.T.A. No. 2481 / DEL /2014 7. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has not taken cognizance of the actual definition of infrastructure project as per Section 80IA (4) and without looking into the fulfillment of…

M/S Dsiidc Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-03, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2673/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801Section 80I

Mahabir Prasad, Sarguja vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 54/RPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh(Hearing In Virtual Court) Mahabir Prasad Pcit, Raipur-1 Ajirma, Raghavpuri P.S Raipur Vs Jaynagar, Surajpur, Sarguja Chhattisgarh Pan : Bphpp 3014 E Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 263Section 44A

…quate enquiry”. If there is a lack of enquiry than 7 Mahabir Prasad (A.Y.15-16) assessment order can be branded as erroneous. The LD AR of the assessee submits that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd (2009) 31 DTR 1 (Del) held that ‘inadequacy of enquiry’ cannot be a sufficient ground for taking revision under section 263 of the Act, if there is lack of enquiry than probably Commissioner would be justified taking action under section 263 of the Act. The Ld. AR of the assessee further submits that Ld PCIT simply directed the Assessing Officer to make further enq…

M/S Active Tools (P). Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -II, Jalandhar

ITA 260/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 115Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 154Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

…he assessee was commenced in this case, unlike the facts in the case of M/s. Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd.(supra). The Mumbai Bench of Tribunal while noticing the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd, 332 ITR 167 and the case of Nagesh knitwear Pvt. Ltd., 355 ITR 135 observed that the Explanation- 2 to section 263 inserted by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.04.2015 would not impact the assessment earlier to 2014-15 and such a decision was followed by the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of Arun Kumar Garg (HUF) vs. PCIT in ITA No. 3391/Del/2018 for the ass…

Sh. Gurbachan Singh Brar, Moga vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Moga

ITA 207/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 263(1)

Sh. Santokh Singh Brar, Moga vs. ITO, Ward - 2, Moga

ITA 206/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 263(1)

Pinebridge Investments Capital India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Range-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 800/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Sahu, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…assessee submitted before the ld PCIT that assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year by placing reliance on various decisions as under: 1. CIT vs Chettinad Logiistics 9P) ltd (2017) 80 taxmann.com 221 (Madras) 2. Sunbeam Auto Ltd vs CIT (2011)(332 ITR 167) 3. Idea Cellular Ltd vs DOT (2008) 301 ITR 407 4. Max India Ltd vs CIT (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom HC) The submissions of the Assessee did niot find favour with the ld PCIT and he set aside the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 24.11.2017. 3 M/s. PineBridge Investments Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. The Ld. A.R. submitted before the bench…

Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT, -27, Mumbai

ITA 1603/MUM/2020[2016-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2016-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Shri Sanjay Agarwal The Pr.Cit-27 1001/02 Brindavan Terrace, Vs. Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, Deonar Farm Road, Deonar, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400088 Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No. Agepa6776B (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Dr. P. Daniel, A.R Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2021

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT D.R

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

…erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue was precluded from invoking his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Further, the ld. A.R relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Limited (2012) 332 ITR 167 (Del), wherein the High Court had held that Sec. 263 does not visualize a case of substitution of the judgment ITA No.1603/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2015-16 8 Shri Sanjay Agarwal Vs. The Pr.CIT-27 of the CIT as against that of the Income Tax Officer unless the latters decision is found to be erroneous. Also, reliance was placed by the ld. A.R on the judgme…

Shrimati Ravinder Bawa, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 703/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. Ar relied upon COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ARVIND JEWELLERS HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT ( (2002) 124 TAXMAN 615 , COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. HIGH COURT OF DELHI (2009) 227 CTR (Del) 133 : (2011) 332 ITR 167 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VINOD KUMAR GUPTA HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA (2007) 165 TAXMAN 225 ,COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DESIGN & AUTOMATION ENGINEERS (BOMBAY) (P) LTD. HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (2009) 177 TAXMAN, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MUNJAL CASTINGS HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA (2008) 168 TAXMAN 241,COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX…

Rutvi Oilfields Services Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. Pr. CIT, Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3291/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

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

…ITA No. 3291/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3291/DEL/2019 (A.Y 2014-15) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) M/s Rutvi Oilfields Services Pvt. Vs Principal Commissioner of Ltd. Income Tax, Gurgaon 327/3, Prem Nagar, HSIIDC Bldg., Vanijya Opposite Haryana Roadways, Nikunj, Gurgaon – 122022 Udyog Vihar, Phase –V, Haryana Gurgaon – 122 016 AAECR0637B Haryana (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. K. Sampath, Advocate; Respondent by Ms. Parmita M. Biswas, [CIT] – D.R. Date o…

Shivam Enterprise, Althan vs. Pr. CIT-2, Surat

In the result, the appeals of the assessees (in ITA Nos

ITA 108/SRT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.107 & 108/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:(2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shyam Corporation, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. S. No. 84/1, 885 Block No.137, T.P. No.58, F.P. No.38, B/H. Siddhivinayak Complex, Bamroli, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acgfs7598M (Assessee) (Respondent) Shivam Enterprises, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. Tp. 43, Block No.50, Fp.30, At Post Bhimrad, Althan, Surat-395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acdfs9748Q

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. T. Bidari, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…There is difference between ‘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) 332 ITR 167], 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 Commissioner to pass order u/s 263 of the Act, merely because the Commissioner 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 exerci…

Shyam Corporation, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-2, Surat

In the result, the appeals of the assessees (in ITA Nos

ITA 107/SRT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 May 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. T. Bidari, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 37

M/S Nilkanth Stone Industries, Valsad vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 386/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.386/Srt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Nilkanth Stone Industries, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Shop No.A-1/2/3, Nilkanth Of Income Tax, Valsad. Residency, B/H Old Jakarta Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad. [Pan: Aajfn 5653 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Surji Chheda - Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 27.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (Act) By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Pcit” Passed Under Section 263 Of Income-Tax Act (Act) Dated 27.03.2018, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Vide His Application Dated 16.08.2018 Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit Has Erred In Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Which Was Without Jurisdiction & The Cit Erred In Holding That The Assessment Order Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue On All Issues Discussed In Revision Order & Has Erred In Setting It Aside For Fresh

Section 253Section 263

…y HC),  CIT Vs Vikas Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537 (Delhi HC),  ITO Vs DG Housing Projects [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Delhi HC),  Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 3858 (Delhi HC.),  CIT – Vs. Leisure wear Exports Ltd., 341 ITR 166 (Delhi HC.),  CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Delhi HC),  CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd. 329 ITR 289 (Delhi HC),  CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC),  ITA NO.3206/DEL/2017 Amira Enterprises ltd Vs PCIT,  CIT Vs Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502 GUJ HC),  CIT Vs R. K. Construction Co. (313 ITR 65),  Indus Best Hospitality ITA No. 3125/MUM/2017” 7. On ground No.8, the ld.AR submits that the co…

Ambawatt Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (C), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2552/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Ambawatt Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit (C), Kh 267, 1St Floor, 7Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, Chatterpur Enclave, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Mehrauli, Gurgaon. New Delhi. Pan: Aagca0991B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Satpal Gulati, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17Th February, 2017 Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Cit, Central, Gurgaon, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2014, Declaring Nil Income. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Compulsory Scrutiny & A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee On 20Th September, 2015. Notice U/S 142(1) Along With A Questionnaire Was Also Issued On 12Th May, 2016. In Response To The Statutory Notices Issued By The Ao, The Assessee Appeared Before Him From Time To Time & Furnished Replies Which Were Kept On Record. The Ao, On The Basis Of Various Details Furnished Before Him, Disallowed An Amount Of Rs.3,91,936/- U/S 40A(3) Out Of Car Repairs & Maintenance & Determined The Total Loss Of The Assessee At Rs.94,25,270/- As Against The Returned Loss Of Rs.98,17,203/-.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…er enquires by himself and he cannot simply set aside the order of the AO for further enquiries. For the above proposition he relied on the following decisions:- a. CIT Vs DG Housing 343 ITR 239(Del); b. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del), c. D.K.Associates in ITA No.5659 of 2016 dated 16.01.2017; 13.5 The ld. Counsel for the assessee accordingly submitted that: a. The order of assessment against which the impugned action of 263 is challenged was barred by limitation and hence the jurisdiction of 263 was also barred by limitation. b. On merits the case of the assessee is tha…

Shri Shaligram Barod, Indore vs. Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 625/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 54Section 54BSection 54FSection 54F(1)

…2 (SC) 6.4.3] The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Associated Food Products (P.) Ltd. as reported in [2006] 280 ITR 377 (Madhya Pradesh) 6.4.4] The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. as reported in [2009] 227 CTR 133 (Delhi) 6.4.5] The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT v. Jyoti Foundation as reported in [2013] 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) 6.4.6] The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pr CIT-2 v. Shree Gayatri Associates as reported in [2019] 106 taxmann.com 31 (SC) dismissed the SLP filed by the Department against the order of the Hon’ble Gujarat…

Kailashchandra Khandelwal, Sendhwa vs. Pr. CIT -2, Indore

ITA 562/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Kailash Khandelwal Pr. Cit-2, Prop. M/S. Vikash Krishi Indore बनाम/ Seva Kendra, Bus Stand, Vs. Sendhwa, Barwani (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Acmpk2991E Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Vijay Bansal, Nisha Lahoti, Ars Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 44A

…अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE MANISH BORAD,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON'BLE’ MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Kailash Khandelwal Pr. CIT-2, Prop. M/s. Vikash Krishi Indore बनाम/ Seva Kendra, Bus Stand, Vs. Sendhwa, Barwani (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. ACMPK2991E Appellant by Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Vijay Bansal, Nisha Lahoti, ARs Revenue by Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 8.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 30.04.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: By way of this appeal, the appell…

Satish Kumar Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 260/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…(P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR I (SC) - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan: 384 ITR 200 (SC) -. CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd 343 ITR 161(Bom.) - CIT v . Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.) - CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.: 332 ITR 167 (Del) -CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Born.) - Vimgi Investment (P) Limited: 290 ITR 505 (Del) - Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H) - CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited: 203 ITR 108 (Born). 5.12.1 In connection wit the submission of the assessee, received on 03.12.2018, it may be reiterated that in order to provide cl…

M/S Venkatesh Technokraft Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-1(5), Ludhiana

ITA 1464/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Him Which Is Arbitrary & Unjustified. 3. That The Assessment Order Having Been Passed By The Assessing Officer After Due Application Of Mind & Taking Into Consideration The Various Replies, Material On Record & Books Of Account, The Action Resorted To By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Unwarranted & Uncalled For.

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Dahiya, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 263

…was not a case of lack of enquiry and only on the suspicion, the assessment order framed by the A.O. after the proper enquiry and application of mind, cannot be set aside, the reliance was placed on the following case laws: • CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) • Director of Income Tax Vs. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) • Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) Reliance was also placed on the decision dt. 17/08/2009 of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in ITA No. 445 of 2008 in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Unique Autofelts (P) Ltd, copy of which is placed at page n…