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.

Shri Pramod Kumar Tekriwal, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, these three appeals of three assessees are allowed

ITA 1136/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Himat Singhka, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) Binod Kumar Tekriwal HUF Vs. PCIT-10, Kolkata 110, Southern Avenue, Kolkata- 700029 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABHT 3573 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1135/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Sandip Kumar Tekriwal HUF Vs. PCIT-10, Kolkata 110, Southern Avenue, Kolkata- 700029 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFHS 0739 F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1136/Kol/2018 ("नधा"र…

Sandip Kumar Tekriwal HUF, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, these three appeals of three assessees are allowed

ITA 1135/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Himat Singhka, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 263

Binod Kumar Tekriwal HUF, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, these three appeals of three assessees are allowed

ITA 1134/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Himat Singhka, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 263

M/S. Y.R. Traders (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Kolkata - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1006/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1006/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT DR

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.1006/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) M/s Y.R. Traders (P) Ltd. Vs. PCIT, Kolkata-1, Kolkata 2nd Floor, Room No. 202, 1, British India Street, Kolkata- 700069 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAACY 4873 E (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent by :Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 24/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 22/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per A.L. Saini, AM: The captioned appeal fil…

Gurukrupa Developers D N Nagar Project, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3353/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43C

…by the Assessing Officer in our considered opinion there is no occasion for learned CIT to exercise u/s. 263 of the Act. In this regard learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (332 ITR 167) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108). In our considered opinion these case laws also further fructify the case of the assessee. Accordingly, in our considered opinion when allotment letter/booking of the unit alongwith payment of receipt through bank is already on record, we fail to understand as…

Syscom Corporation Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-3, Mumbai

ITA 1608/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1608/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsyanFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Billa, DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 263

…s for that reason that the Tribunal disapproved his action and set aside his order. We do not find any infirmity in the above conclusion of the Tribunal. " iii. Judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported at (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi), wherein the Ron 'ble High Court 31 I.T.A. No. 1608/Mum/2018 M/s Syscom Corporation Pvt. Ltd. following the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court (Page No. 71-88 of the Paperbook) in the case of Gabrial India Ltd. (supra)hdd as under: "12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have gone through the re…

Sanjay Kumar Surana, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-12, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 902/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm ]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…osition on merits, we also rely upon the following judicial precedents: a) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83 (SC). b) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT -vs- Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del). c) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of ClT -vs- Gabriel India Ltd reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bom.). d) Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. -vs- CIT reported in 263 ITR 437 (P&H). e) non'bte Delhi High Court in the case of CIT -vs- Leisure Wear Exports Pvt. Ltd. reported in 3411TR 166 (Del). 9. Per c…

Charbuja Marmo (India) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 4749/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

…ut of SLP (C) No.22973 of 2007, Dated 02.02.2010 in which it was held that “issue of notice under section 143(2) is mandatory”. Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del.) in which it was held that “if the ITO acting in accordance with Law, makes certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the Order should have been written more elaborately.” Learned Counsel for the Assessee also relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the ca…

Shri Satish Kumar. S/O. Sh. Hans Raj, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4, Hoshiarpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 258/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.258/Asr/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2014-15 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Satish Kumar S/O Hans Raj, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of B-12, Mch-366/13, Billa Income-Tax-1, Jalandhar House, New Jagatpura, Hoshiarpur Pan: Aawpk 0932 D अपीलाथ" Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

…) : [2003] 131 Taxman 535 (SC). The Ld. AR of the assessee Satish Kumar v. Pr.CIT- Jalandhar/I.T.A.No. 258/ASR/2019/A.Y. 14-15 Page 5 of 20 has also relied in the case of CIT v. Amar Jewellers Ltd. v. DCIT [2002]259 ITR 502, CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) [2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi), CIT v. Vinod Kumar Gupta [2007] 165 Taxman 225 (P&H) and others which have been reproduced by the Pr.CIT in his order passed under section 263 of the Act. However, the Pr. CIT observed that the objection regarding difference of opinion between the AO and Pr.CIT, is concerned the position has been substan…

Gurvinder Kaur Bhatia, Indore vs. Pr. CIT-2, Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 151/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years: 2015-16 Smt. Harleen Kaur Bhatia Pr.CIT-2 144, Pipliyarao, Near Vs. Indore Vishnupuri Colony, A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No.AMGPB3531P Assessment Years: 2015-16 Smt. Gurvinder Kaur Bhatia Pr.CIT-2 13-14, Aditya Nagar, Near Vs. Indore Vishnupuri Colony, A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No.AGJPB0037B Assessee by S/Shri Sumit Nema & Shri GaganTiwari, ARs Revenue by Shri S.S. Mantry,…

Harleen Kaur Bhatia, Indore vs. Pr. CIT-2, Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 150/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

Section 263

Hi-Rock Construction Co., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4327/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Hi Rock Construction Co. Pr. Cit -32 C-11, 2Nd Floor, 903, A, Gurukul Tower, Cst No. 890, J. S. Road, Dahisar (W), Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan: Aaffh6403B Mumbai. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi with Shri Shubham Rathi (AR)For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas (CIT-DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…d proper enquiry and framed the assessment order. The ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decisions of CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom)], CIT vs. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. [(2019) 305 ITR 486 (Bom)], CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del)], CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma [(2011) 335 ITR 83 (Del.)], CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. 11 ITA No. 4327 Mum 2019-M/s Hi Rock Construction Co. [(2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del.)], CIT vs. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. [(2013) 213 Taxman 184 (Del.)], Kamal Kumar Gupta vs. CIT [(2011) 142 TTJ 9 (Jaipur Trib.)], Anand Poddar vs. ACIT [(2013) 33 taxm…

Brahma Center Development Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-02, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4341/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263

…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 asse…

Kkb Projects Pvt. Ltd, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 222/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.222/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S.Kkb Projects Pvt. Ltd., V The Principal Commissioner 408-409, City Centre, S Of Income Tax -1, Surat. Lal Darwaja Road, Near Resham . Bhavan, Surat. [Pan: Aadck 0811 H] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Singh – Cit-Dr

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

…Page 1 of 15 KKB Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs. PCIT-1, Surat /ITA No.222/SRT/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण,सुरत"यायपीठ,सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.222/SRT/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s.KKB Projects Pvt. Ltd., V The Principal Commissioner 408-409, City Centre, s of Income Tax -1, Surat. Lal Darwaja Road, Near Resham . Bhavan, Surat. [PAN: AADCK 0811 H] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by Shr…

N. J. Eco-Build Pvt. Ltd, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, . Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 221/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.221/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S.N.J.Eco-Build Pvt Ltd., V The Principal Commissioner S-42, Belgium Square, Opp.Laxmi S Of Income Tax, Surat-1. Vilas Bank. Delhi Gate, Ring Road, . Surat. [Pan: Aaecn 1584 H] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Suresh K.Kabra – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Sreenivas T.Bidari – Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 13.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat-1, Dated 25.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Cit U/S.263 Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 263

…s No l REGENCY PARK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT LTD VS CIT ................................ 130 TTJ 669 (DELHI-T) 2 SHREE SALASAR OVERSEAS P LTD VS CIT 144 TTJ 41 (JAIPUR-T) 3 KAMAL KUMAR GUPTA VS CIT ....142 TTJ 9 (JAIPUR-T) 4 CIT VS SUNBEAM AUTO LTD .227 CTR 133 (DELHI-HC) 5 HITENDRA A NANAVATI VS CIT ..135 TTJ 17 (AHD-T) 6 NARAIN SINGLA VS PCIT ................. 156 ITD 275 (CHD-T) Page 6 of 16 N.J.ECO-BUILD PVT LTD. Vs. Pr.CIT, Surat -1/ITA No.221/SRT/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 7 SMT PRAGNABEN VINODBHAI PAREKH VS PCIT ITA/12 76/AHD/2 017 & OTHER 3 CASES DECIDED BY COMMON ORDER 8 CIT VS GREEN FIELD COMME…

M/S. Eveready Industries India Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 805/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…hat he acted illegally or without applying his mind. The third question is, for the reasons discussed above, answered in the negative." 10. This aspect was also explained by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its judgment in the case of CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd (332 ITR 167). The relevant extracts of the judgment is as follows: 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 Income-tax Act. As noted above, the sub…

Tpr Autoparts Mfg India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 25(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4744/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Tpr Autoparts Mfg. India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Mayur Batra & Co., Ca, Circle-25(2), 7, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aacct9433D (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate Deptt. By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit, Dr & Ms Nidhi Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th December, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-44, New Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Company Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of M/S Teikoku Piston Ring Co. Ltd. (Japan). It Had Been Incorporated On 27.03.2008 With The Main Object To Carry On The Business To Manufacture, Export, Buy & Sell & Otherwise Deal In ‘Moulded’ Automobile Products I.E. Piston Rings, Cylinder Liners, Valve Seat Rings & Other Automotive Parts. It Is The Third Year Of Its Existence, Though Effectively It Is The Second Year Of Production After Its Set Up & Commencement Of Business In The Fy 2009-10. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.11.2011 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.6,45,23,822/-. Since The Assessee Had Entered Into Certain International Transactions With Its Aes, The Assessing Officer Referred The Matter To The Transfer Pricing Officer U/S 92Ca Of The Act For Determination Of The Arm’S Length Price Of Such International Transactions. The Tpo, During The Course Of Tp Assessment Proceedings, Observed That The Assessee Company Has Undertaken The Following International Transactions With Its Aes:- No. Nature Of Transaction Method Amount (In Rs.) Purchase Of Raw 1 5,85,47,963 Materials/Assets/Spares Tnmm Payment Of Royalty 76,32,183 2 Tnmm 3 Reimbursement Of Expenses To Ae 9,14,253 -

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate

Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : I-2 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 TPR Autoparts Mfg. India Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, Mayur Batra & Co., CA, Circle-25(2), 7, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AACCT9433D (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate Deptt. By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR & Ms Nidhi Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 17.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 13.12.2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27t…

S. N. Tradelink Private Limited, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 586/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.586/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. S. N. Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Principal Commissioner 3010-11, Moamai Complex, Of Income-Tax- 2, Surat Near Bombay Market Surat Pan: Aakcs 0060 R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 41(1)

…basis of inquiry or verification to be carried out by the AO, the order passed by the AO cannot be deemed to be erroneous in so as far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 9. Similar view has been in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) [2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) wherein the Hon`ble High Court held that inadequacy of enquiry will not give jurisdiction to Commissioner under section 263. In this case the Hon`ble High Court has held as under: (Head note) : Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of order prejudicial to interest of revenue - Assessment year 2…

M/S. Jabibur Rahaman, Murshidabad vs. Principal CIT - 14, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1171/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1171/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT

Section 147Section 263

…at AO has examined all the necessary evidences, and documents and reached on a logical conclusion. Therefore, it is not a case of inadequate scrutiny, for that we rely on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del), wherein it was held that: "if there was any inquiry, even inadequate that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of lack of inquiry that such a course of action would be open." 11. We no…

Supreme Auto, Na

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1141/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh&Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1141/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम M/S. Supreme Auto, Principal Commissioner Of Vs. Bilimora Road, National Income-Tax- Valsad Highway No.8, Samroli, At Chikhli, Navsari - 396521. [Pan: Aamfs 3499 K] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Prasenjit Singh, Cit(D.R.) राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 22.10.2019 सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- Valsad [In Short “The Pr. Cit ”] Dated 22.03.2016 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Under Section 263 Of Income Tax Act,1961 ( In Short ‘The Act’).

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…lhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. [ I.T.A.No. 705/2017 dtd.05.09.2017] of Hon`ble Delhi High Court, Pr. CIT v. Modicare Limited I.T.A.No. 759/2017 Delhi High Court, ITO V. DG Housing Projects Limited [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Del), CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) [2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Vikas Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) .The learned counsel for the assessee submitted as a settled position of law that when the assessing officer has taken a certain view on the basis of evidence before him, in the details of brokerage/ commission , confirmation of unsecured loan and details…