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)

Akhil Modi, Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Surendra Shah (CA)For Respondent: Shri Amrish Bedi (CIT)

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. 239/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2015-16 cuke Sh. Akhil Modi Pr. CIT, Vs. Plot No. 51 & 52, Vijay Nagar, Alwar Kartarpura Phatak, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABVPM3602L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Surendra Shah (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Amrish Bedi (CIT…

Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3285/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 17(2)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

…nd, therefore, the said order cannot be held to be erroneous and, therefore, the provisions of section 263 cannot be applied. The ld. Counsel also relied on the following decisions:- i) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers, 341 ITR 537 (Del); ii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Del); iii) CIT vs. DLF Ltd., 350 ITR 555 (Del); iv) CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282; v) ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd., 343 ITR 329 (Del); vi) Director of Income-tax vs. Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388 (Del); vii) PCIT vs. Vinita Chaurasia, 394 ITR 758 (Del); viii) Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd., 398 ITR 8 (Del) ix) Shri Abhimanyu Gupt…

Essar Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…es of the case, when not only there was a prohibition as stipulated by the Explanation (c) of section 263 but even the twin requirements, viz., pre-conditions for exercise of jurisdiction, under section 263 were not fulfilled. (in) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Del.). "The submission of the revenue was that while passing the assessment order, the Officer did not consider the aspect specifically whether the expenditure in question was revenue or capital expenditure. That argument predicated on the assessment order, which, apparently did not give any reason while allowing the entire expenditure as revenu…

Satyanarayan Sharma, Indore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Indore

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

ITA 426/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 154oSection 2Section 263Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year:2013-14 Satyanarayan Sharma, Pr.CIT-I, 11/2, South Tukoganj, Indore बनाम/ Swapnalok Colony, Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AEAPS5126D Appellant by Shri Girish Agrawal & Miss Nisha Lahoti, ARs Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 11.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 28.12.2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Pr. Commissione…

K R Satyanarayana vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

ITA/192/2015HC Karnataka21 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(2)Section 154Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 50CSection 80C

…63 of the Act. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'CALCUTTA DISCOUNT CO. VS. ITO', (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC), 'CIT VS. J.L. MORRISON (INDIA) LTD.', 8 (2014) 366 ITR 593 (CAL), 'CIT VS. SUNSCAM AUTO LTD.', (2011) 332 ITR 167 (DEL), 'CIT VS. ARVIND JEWELLERS', (2003) 259 ITR 502 (GUJ), 'CIT VS. DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK', (2010) 323 ITR 206 and 'CIT VS. MARKETING AND ADVERTISING CO.', (2012) 341 ITR 180. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the assessee neither in the return of income nor in financial statements disclosed t…

Seth Brothers, Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly

ITA 3395/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Sh. C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…High Court in the case of CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Limited 323 ITR 0206 7. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kashi Nath & Co. (Allahabad High Court 170 ITR 0028 8. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd, 189 Taxmann 436 9. Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case Amrik Singh v. Income- Tax Officer 127 Taxman 0087 10. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers 194 taxman 0057 3. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT, Merrut and stated that inquiries conducted by the Assessing Officer in respect of sun…

M/S. Om Prakash Badaya (HUF), Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT, Alwar

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

ITA 217/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agrawal (AR)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (ACIT-DR)

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

…ombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabrial India Ltd., reported in 203 ITR 108, has held that, “CIT cannot revise order merely because he disagrees with the conclusion arrived at by the ITO”. Further, in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., reported in 227 CTR 133, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court drew a distinction between “Lack of inquiry” and “inadequate enquiry” and held that, ‘in the case of inadequate enquiry, provisions under section 263 cannot be invoked.’ It may however, be noted that the instance case is neither the case of inadequate enquiry nor lack of enquiry during assessment proceedings as it ca…