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.

Bharath Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Pr. CIT, Bangalore -1, Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21

For Appellant: Sri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80P(2)Section 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…

Mahender Malik, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward -(1), Hisar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5586/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Mahender Malik, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 388, Satroad Khurad, Near Ward-1, Adarsh High School, Hisar Hisar Pan: Bitpm5341N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Karishma Rathore, Adv. Sh. Mayank Patawari, Adv. Department By Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069269047(1), Dated 30.09.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 154 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. For The Reasons Stated In The Assessee’S Condonation Averments, Delay Of 3 Days In Filing Of The Instant Appeal Is Condoned In Light Of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc). 3. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities’ Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 4. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only.

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 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…

Deepak Kumar Yadav, Rewari vs. ITO, Rewari

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8579/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21 Sh. Deepak Kumar Yadav, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Village-Kapriwas, Ward-2, Rewari, Dharuhera, Haryana Rewari-123401 Pan: Abrpy2885R (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 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…

Property Plus Realtors, Delhi vs. Pr, CIT Central Delhi 2, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3406/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263

…mainly remanded for re-verification which is not permissible on the basis of plethora of legal judgement on the issue. 26. It is submitted that the reliance is placed on the following case laws under this ground of appeal, (a) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd, (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) (b) PCIT vs. Gayatri Associates (Guj HC, TA 270/2018: SLP Dismissed) (c) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (d) CIT vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del) Conclusion basis Ground No. 2 On the basis of the above facts and law, it is amply clear that Explanation 2(a) of section 263 is not applicable in the fa…

Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Central, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1054/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1052 To 1054/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, The Principal बनामVs 12, Ashwamegh-Iii, Commissioner Of . 132 Feet Ring Road, Income Tax (Central), Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Ablpm2848Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, With Shri Vartik Choksi, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit.Dr

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, with Shri Vartik Choksi, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…filled in the present case as the AO had made detailed inquiries on the issue of seized documents pertaining to the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings. It was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. - (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) that one has to see from the records as to whether there was application of mind before allowing the claim and one has to keep in mind the distinction between ‘lack of inquiry’ and ‘inadequate inquiry’. If there was any enquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass order under Section 263 of…

Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Central, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1053/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1052 To 1054/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, The Principal बनामVs 12, Ashwamegh-Iii, Commissioner Of . 132 Feet Ring Road, Income Tax (Central), Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Ablpm2848Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, With Shri Vartik Choksi, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit.Dr

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, with Shri Vartik Choksi, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…filled in the present case as the AO had made detailed inquiries on the issue of seized documents pertaining to the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings. It was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. - (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) that one has to see from the records as to whether there was application of mind before allowing the claim and one has to keep in mind the distinction between ‘lack of inquiry’ and ‘inadequate inquiry’. If there was any enquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass order under Section 263 of…

Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Central, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1052/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1052 To 1054/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, The Principal बनामVs 12, Ashwamegh-Iii, Commissioner Of . 132 Feet Ring Road, Income Tax (Central), Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Ablpm2848Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, With Shri Vartik Choksi, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit.Dr

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, with Shri Vartik Choksi, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…filled in the present case as the AO had made detailed inquiries on the issue of seized documents pertaining to the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings. It was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. - (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) that one has to see from the records as to whether there was application of mind before allowing the claim and one has to keep in mind the distinction between ‘lack of inquiry’ and ‘inadequate inquiry’. If there was any enquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass order under Section 263 of…

Krishan Kumar Yadav, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rewari

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8417/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 8417/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Krishan Kumar Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, Bank Of Baroda, Circular Road, Ward-2, Rewari, Haryana-123401 Rewari, Haryana-123401 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpy1644F Assessee By: Sh. I. P. Bansal, Adv. & Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.01.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1081822094(1) Dated 16.10.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. I. P. Bansal, Adv. &For 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…

Vimla Devi Thakran, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8305/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vimla Devi Thakran, Vs. Income Tax Officer, I Tower, Ea-8, 6Th Floor, Tata Ward -43(2), Primanti, South City-Ii, New Delhi Sector-72, Gurgaon Pan: Agfpt4774R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S.K. Wadhwa, Ca 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. 3,9…

Mahender, Huda Colony, Hansi vs. Income Tax Ward-1, Hisar, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8139/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

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…

Mange Ram, Gurugram vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 710/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Mange Ram, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income H. No. 261, Main Pataudi Tax, Faridabad, Road, Near Hanuman Temple, Village Garoli Khurd, P.O.- Basai, Gurugram, Haryana Pan: Amwpr7462B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nian, Adv., Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, Ca Department By Ms. Amish S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 15.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [In Short, The “Pcit”], Faridabad’S Order Dated 04.12.2023 Having Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1058449758(1), Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Herd Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities’ Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 3. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S Pleadings & Revenue’S Foregoing Vehement Contention. It Emerges That This Tribunal’S Recent Decision

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…

Lakhi Ram, Gurugram vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Gurgaon, Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2028/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Amitabh Shuklaita No. 2028/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2019-20 Lakhi Ram, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 70, Village- Dhanwapur, Ward-1(4), Daultabad, Gurugram, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Awzpr6814L Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2019-20 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1061566876(1) Dated 27.02.2024, In Proceedings U/S 144 R.W.S. 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 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…

Valour Autopack, Gor Khijadiya, Morbi Gujarat vs. The Pr. CIT 1 Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanja Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269S

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.271/RJT/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 Valour Autopack The PR. CIT-1, बनाम Survey No. 16P4, At Gorkhijadiya, Rajkot Vs. Nexa Paper LLP Morbi (Gujarat) -363641 PAN No.: AAQFV4832K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Hardik Vora, ld.AR राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Sanja Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा क" त…

Sh. Amrish Singh, Sirsa vs. ACIT/DCIT- Int. Tax, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 590/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Karan Jeet Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Acgps7292E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Kabal Jeet Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Acgps7934M (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.390/Chandi/2021 & 590/Chandi/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Amrish Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Aszps6911K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Lalit Mohan, Adv. Sh. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(vii)

…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…

Shri Kabal Jeet Singh, Sirsa vs. DCIT/ACIT-Int.-Tax, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 424/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Karan Jeet Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Acgps7292E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Kabal Jeet Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Acgps7934M (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.390/Chandi/2021 & 590/Chandi/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Amrish Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Aszps6911K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Lalit Mohan, Adv. Sh. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(vii)

…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…

Shri Karan Jeet Singh, Sirsa vs. DCIT/ACIT- Int.Tax, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Karan Jeet Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Acgps7292E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Kabal Jeet Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Acgps7934M (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.390/Chandi/2021 & 590/Chandi/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Amrish Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Aszps6911K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Lalit Mohan, Adv. Sh. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(vii)

…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…

Sh. Amrish Singh, Sirsa vs. DCIT/ACIT, Int. Tax., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 390/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Karan Jeet Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Acgps7292E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Kabal Jeet Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Acgps7934M (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.390/Chandi/2021 & 590/Chandi/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Amrish Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Aszps6911K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Lalit Mohan, Adv. Sh. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(vii)

…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…

Shanti Rice Mills, Karnal vs. Pr.CIT, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1162/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, F: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.- 1162/Del/2020 [Assessment Year: 2015-16] M/s Shanti Rice Mills, PCIT, C/o Parvesh Kumar Sharma, Karnal Bay Site No.- 25-30, Advocate, 493-L, Model Town, Vs Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana. Karnal. PAN- AAIFS5617B Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Rakesh Jain, Adv. Revenue by Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 22.12.2025 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM, This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order…

Worldview Education Services Private Lmited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1056/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1056/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Worldview Education Services Private Limited, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad – 500 016. Ward-17(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw9480F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca C. Maheshwar Reddy राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: G Saratha, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA C. Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: G Saratha, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…vs. V. Dhana Reddy & Co. [2018] 100 taxmann.com 358 (SC); 3. Commissioner to Income-tax vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 71 Taxman 585 (Bombay); 4. India Research and Development (P) Ltd vs Add. CIT and Others 445 ITRI 83 (Kar.-HC); 5. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.-HC); 6. Pr. CIT vs. Deccan Jewellers P. Ltd. 438 ITR 131 (AP- HC); 7. D. Pedda Reddaiah vs. ITO, dated 30.04.2020 (ITAT, Hyd. Tribu); 8. CIT vs. M. Chandra Sekhar 151 ITR 433 (SC). 9. CIT vs. Mulchand Bagri (108 CTR 206 Cal.). 10. CIT vs. D P Karai (266 ITR 113 Guj); 9 ITA.No.1056/Hyd./2025 11. Paul Mathews vs. CIT (263 ITR 101 Ker); 12.…

M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1126/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., CIT
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी ट" वक", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम$ BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:1126/Chny/2024 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s. City Union Bank, PCIT, No.148-149, T.S.R Big Street, vs. Madurai - 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. [PAN: AAACC-1287-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) अपीलाथ' क* ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. S. Ananthan, F.C.A. & Ms. R. Lalitha, F.C.A. ()यथ' क* ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. Bipin C.N., C…