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.

DCIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. Bajaj Holding & Investments Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6963/MUM/2014[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2020AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 254

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT DB-III), ‘B‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM ITA No.6324/Mum/2010 (Assessment Year :1991-1992) & Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Bajaj Holdings & Income Tax(LTU-1), Mumbai Investment Ltd (Formerly known 29th Floor, Centre-I, World as M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd.,) 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2nd Floor Trade Center, Cuffe Parade Mumbai – 400 005 Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAACB3370K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Shri Rahul Raman- CIT DR Assessee by Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Date of H…

Meghmani Organics Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT., Cent.Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2204/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…l with in a short while, for that approach. There is no dearth of examples on this aspect of the matter. Take for example, the amendment to Section 263 by the Finance Act, 1961. In many judicial precedents, [such as in the case of CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Limited (332 ITR 167) = 2009-TIOL-552-HC-DEL- IT wherein it was held that "Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that one has to keep in mind the distinction between "lack of inquiry" and "inadequate inquiry". If there was any inquiry, even inadequate that would not by itself give occasion to the CIT to pass orders under s. 263 of the Act, merel…

Padam Kumae Jain, Ranchi vs. CIT, Central, Patna

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

ITA 289/RAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Ran/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Padam Kumar Jain Vs. Cit, Central, Cr Building, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna – 800001. Ratanlalsurajmal Compound, Main Road, Ranchi – 834001, Jharkhand "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abrpj 0001 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Chaudhury & Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…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…

Shuma Kalra, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 12, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee failed on all five grounds raised before us

ITA 4128/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishuma Kalra, Vs. Pr. Cit-12, A-28, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaipk8142R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Chaoudhary, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…inable in law. It is not the case where there is more than one view available on the facts of the case. Hence, reliance placed on such decision is merely an academic exercise. b. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court 341 ITR 166, 332 ITR 167, 341 ITR 547 to submit that 263 cannot be invoked to make further deeper investigation. In the present case, it is merely the basic investigation that the ld AO was required to do on the return of income filed by the assessee, which AO has failed to do. There was complete non-application of mind by the ld AO that is conclusively proved by the Pr.…

Gouri Shankar Goyal, Siliguri vs. I.T.O.Ward-1(3), Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 517/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.517/Kol/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15) Gouri Shankar Goyal Vs. Pcit, Siliguri

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

Tata Sons Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit 2, 24, Bombay House, Room No.552, Homi Mody Street, Vs. 5Th Floor, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaact4060A M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.R. Ms. Arati Vissanji, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 57

…would not by itself, give occasion for initiation of revisionary proceedings under Section 263 of the Act, merely because the Commissioner would have a different opinion in the matter. This view is affirmed by Delhi High Court in the case of Sunbeam Auto Ltd (332 ITR 167) (Del HC). Relevant extract of the decision is reproduced herein below: "12. The submission of the revenue was that while passing the assessment order, the Assessing 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 appar…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The DCIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…s Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Bench Delhi) (x) M/s Narayan Tatu Rane (ITAT Mumbai Delhi) 21. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions :- a. CIT v/s. Software Consultants 341 ITR 240 (Del.) b. CIT v/s. Anil Corporation 213 Taxmann 19 c. CIT v/s. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.) d. CIT v/s. Makal Suta Cotton Co. P. Ltd. 275 ITR 54(M.P) e. CIT v/s R.K. Construction Co., 313 ITR 65 (Guj.) f. CIT v/s Max India, 295 ITR 282 (SC) g. CIT v/s Ratlam Coal Ash Co., 171 ITR 141 (M.P) h. CIT v/s Arvind Jewellers, 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) i. CIT v/s Vodafone Essar South Ltd, 212 Taxmann 184 (Del.) j. CIT v/s Mehrotra Brothers, 270…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The ACIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

M/S. Bhandari Hospital and Research Centre, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 355/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 35A

…60-96 ) i. Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO (ITA no. 2690/Mum/2016 placed at pg 97-117) Other decisions relied upon- copies not being filed a. CIT v/s. Software Consultants 341 ITR 240 (Del.) b. CIT v/s. Anil Corporation 213 Taxmann 19 c. CIT v/s. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.) d. CIT v/s. Makal Suta Cotton Co. P. Ltd. 275 ITR 54(M.P) e. CIT v/s R.K. Construction Co., 313 ITR 65 (Guj.) f. CIT v/s Max India, 295 ITR 282 (SC) g. CIT v/s Ratlam Coal Ash Co., 171 ITR 141 (M.P) h. CIT v/s Arvind Jewellers, 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) i. CIT v/s Vodafone Essar South Ltd, 212 Taxmann 184 (Del.) j. CIT v/s Shri Govindram Seksari…

Shri Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 350/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

M/S. Subhlabh Steels (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2047/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2047/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.2047/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) M/s Subhlabh Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata 2nd Floor, Room No. 202, 1, British India Street, Kolkata- 700069 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAECA 4597 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA Respondent by :Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 29/01/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Dr. A.L. Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the Ass…

Citicorp Services India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT-14, Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3581/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3581/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri L. N. Pant & Ms. PreetiFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimpson

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3581/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) PCIT - 14, Citicorp Services India Aayakar Bhava, M. K. Pvt. Ltd. Road, Mumbai -400 020 First International बिधम/ Financial Centre, 8th floor, Plot C-54 & 55, G-Block, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 098 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AADCC6705C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri L. N. Pant & Ms. Preeti Jain, ARs प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Awangshi Gim…

M/S. Singhal Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., C.C. - 4(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee ( in ITA No

ITA 1072/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1071 & 1072/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2013-14 &2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…rong or unlawful. For that we rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)(supra). Further, we note that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (227 CTR 133) drew the thin line of difference between "lack of inquiry" and "inadequate inquiry" and held that in the case of inadequate inquiry there cannot be 263 order. Therefore, without prejudice, even it is held that the AO had made inadequate inquiry then also powers under section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked under the facts and circumstances of t…

M/S. Singhal Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., C.C. - 4(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee ( in ITA No

ITA 1071/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1071 & 1072/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2013-14 &2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

M/S. Devi Shakuntala Thkaral Charitable Foundation, Bhopal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 322/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Devi Shakuntala Dcit Thakral Charitable (Exemption) बनाम/ Foundation Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaatd2943B

Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…[ITA No.322/Ind/2018] [M/s. Devi Shakuntala Thakral Charitable Foundation, Bhopal] 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 M/s. Devi Shakuntala DCIT Thakral Charitable (Exemption) बनाम/ Foundation Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AAATD2943B Appellant by Shri Girish Agrawal & Miss Nisha Lahoti, A.Rs Respondent by Shri S.B. Prasad, D.R. Date of Hearing: 17.02.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 20.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT,…

Kritika Wires Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.C.I.T.-2, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 709/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 263

…8 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT vs. Kwalaity Steel Suppliers Complex 395 ITR - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC) - CIT vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd. 343 ITR 161 (Bom) - CIT vs. Vikas Plymers 341 ITR 537 (Del) - CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 (Del) - CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd 323 ITR 206 (Bom) - Vimgi Investment (P) td 290 ITR 5050 (Del) - Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT 263 ITR 437 (P&H) - CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 6.3 It may be further noticed that in order to provide clarity on the issue of “erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the r…

Sl Lumax Limited, Kanchipuram vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 1692/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy*नधा,रण वष, /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.Sl Lumax Ltd., V. The Principal Commissioner G-14, 15 & 25, Sipcot Industrial Of Income Tax, Room No.602, Park, Irrungattukottai, Vi Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Sriperumbudur-602 117. New Block, Mahatama Gandhi Kancheepuram District. Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034. [Pan: Aaacl 1857 B] (अपीलाथ//Appellant) (01यथ//Respondent) : Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, अपीलाथ/ क2 ओर से/ Appellant By Adv. : Mr. A.Sundararajan, Cit 01यथ/ क2 ओर से /Respondent By : 28.11.2019 सुनवाई क2 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.02.2020 घोषणा क2 तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

For Respondent: 28.11.2019

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 263Section 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी र"मत कोचर, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु$वु% आर.एल. रे'डी, "या*यक सद"य के सम+ BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU R.L.REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER *नधा,रण वष, /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s.SL Lumax Ltd., v. The Principal Commissioner G-14, 15 & 25, SIPCOT Industrial of Income Tax, Room No.602, Park, Irrungattukottai, VI Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Sriperumbudur-602 117. New Block, Mahatama Gandhi Kancheepuram District. Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034. [PAN: AAACL 1857 B] (अपीलाथ//Appellant) (01यथ//Responde…

ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat vs. Shri Sunil Kumar P. Jain, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1164/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1164/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Supreme Auto, Principal Commissioner Bilimora Road, National Of Income-Tax- Valsad Highway No.8, Samroli, At Chikhli, Navsari 396 521 Pan: Aamfs 3499 K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…Supreme Auto vs. Pr. CIT- Valsad /I.T.A.No.1164/Ahd/2017/A.Y. 12-13 Page 1 of 19 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-SURAT-BENCH-SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1164/AHD/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/s. Supreme Auto, Principal Commissioner Bilimora Road, National of Income-Tax- Valsad Highway No.8, Samroli, At Chikhli, Navsari 396 521 PAN: AAMFS 3499 K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah, CA िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by Shri O.P. Vaishnav , CIT(D.R.) राज"व क" ओर से /Reven…

M/S Chengmari Tea Co. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 812/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Years: 2014-15

Section 115JSection 263Section 33A

…TR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (Sell CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan: 384 ITR 200 (SC) CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd: 343 ITR 161 (Born.) 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). 6.5 It may be further noticed that in order to provide clarity on the issue of “erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the intere…

Klaxon Trading (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Central- 3, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7265/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 7265/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14) M/S Klaxon Trading (P.) Ltd., Vs Pcit, Warehouse A-97B, Khasra Central – 3, No.50/4, New Delhi Behind Friends Dharam Kanta Shahbad Daulatpur, New Delhi – 110 042 (Pan : Aaack 3487 E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 263

…elied upon the 5 decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd 295 ITR 282, Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83. The Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 and ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 74 DTR 153. 7. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Pr. CIT and further submitted that there is no enquiry made by the Assessing Officer as to the cash deposits and the Pr. CIT rightly directed the Assessing Officer to pass speaking order. The Ld. DR relied upon the following decisions: 1. Denial Mer…