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 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.

Dipanjan Basak, Kolkata vs. ACIT(It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

ITA 1316/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.Ta No.1303/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Mahesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (It&Tp), C/O Ibm India Private Limited Global Kolkata Process Services-1A, Tax Team Hr Delivery Centre ‘D1’, 4Th Floor, Manyata Business Park, Outer Ring Road, Nagawara, Karnataka-560045. (Pan:Apspk6683A) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1307/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Smt. Lisa Das Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bl-353, Sector-2, Salt Lake, Kolkata- (It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata. 700 091. (Pan: Amqpd7668B) Appellant Respondent I.Ta Nos.1309/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Samir Kumar Nayak Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), Sales Tax Office Lane, Balasore, Kolkata. Odisha-756001. (Pan: Afcpn5619M) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1310/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Balakalyan Chowdary Marathu Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 2/423-C, Mangalamitra, Rajampet, Kolkata. Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh-516115 (Pan: Asrpm6979R) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1312/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Biswajit Swain Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 60/4A, Haran Banerjee Lane, Kolkata. Konnagar, Hooghly, West Bengal- 712235 (Pan: Aysps1745C) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1313/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Azharul Haque Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Flat 6, Building 1, Sayed Ismail Lane, Tax (It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata. Ays- 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 192Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

…the Income-tax Officer cannot be held to be "erroneous" simply because in his order, he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.' 84. The aforesaid views expressed by the Bombay High Court was quoted in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167/[2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi). 85. He also drew our attention to a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437/131 Taxman 535, wherein the following views were expressed:-- "The expression "record" has also been defined in clause (b) of the Explanation so as to include all records r…

Azharul Haque, Kolkata vs. ACIT(It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

ITA 1313/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.Ta No.1303/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Mahesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (It&Tp), C/O Ibm India Private Limited Global Kolkata Process Services-1A, Tax Team Hr Delivery Centre ‘D1’, 4Th Floor, Manyata Business Park, Outer Ring Road, Nagawara, Karnataka-560045. (Pan:Apspk6683A) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1307/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Smt. Lisa Das Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bl-353, Sector-2, Salt Lake, Kolkata- (It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata. 700 091. (Pan: Amqpd7668B) Appellant Respondent I.Ta Nos.1309/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Samir Kumar Nayak Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), Sales Tax Office Lane, Balasore, Kolkata. Odisha-756001. (Pan: Afcpn5619M) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1310/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Balakalyan Chowdary Marathu Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 2/423-C, Mangalamitra, Rajampet, Kolkata. Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh-516115 (Pan: Asrpm6979R) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1312/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Biswajit Swain Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 60/4A, Haran Banerjee Lane, Kolkata. Konnagar, Hooghly, West Bengal- 712235 (Pan: Aysps1745C) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1313/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Azharul Haque Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Flat 6, Building 1, Sayed Ismail Lane, Tax (It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata. Ays- 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 192Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

…the Income-tax Officer cannot be held to be "erroneous" simply because in his order, he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.' 84. The aforesaid views expressed by the Bombay High Court was quoted in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167/[2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi). 85. He also drew our attention to a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437/131 Taxman 535, wherein the following views were expressed:-- "The expression "record" has also been defined in clause (b) of the Explanation so as to include all records r…

Biswajit Swain, Hooghly vs. CIT(It&Tp), Kolkata

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

ITA 1312/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.Ta No.1303/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Mahesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (It&Tp), C/O Ibm India Private Limited Global Kolkata Process Services-1A, Tax Team Hr Delivery Centre ‘D1’, 4Th Floor, Manyata Business Park, Outer Ring Road, Nagawara, Karnataka-560045. (Pan:Apspk6683A) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1307/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Smt. Lisa Das Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bl-353, Sector-2, Salt Lake, Kolkata- (It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata. 700 091. (Pan: Amqpd7668B) Appellant Respondent I.Ta Nos.1309/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Samir Kumar Nayak Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), Sales Tax Office Lane, Balasore, Kolkata. Odisha-756001. (Pan: Afcpn5619M) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1310/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Balakalyan Chowdary Marathu Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 2/423-C, Mangalamitra, Rajampet, Kolkata. Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh-516115 (Pan: Asrpm6979R) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1312/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Biswajit Swain Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 60/4A, Haran Banerjee Lane, Kolkata. Konnagar, Hooghly, West Bengal- 712235 (Pan: Aysps1745C) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1313/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Azharul Haque Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Flat 6, Building 1, Sayed Ismail Lane, Tax (It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata. Ays- 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 192Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

…the Income-tax Officer cannot be held to be "erroneous" simply because in his order, he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.' 84. The aforesaid views expressed by the Bombay High Court was quoted in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167/[2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi). 85. He also drew our attention to a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437/131 Taxman 535, wherein the following views were expressed:-- "The expression "record" has also been defined in clause (b) of the Explanation so as to include all records r…

Balakalyan Chowdary Marathu, Kadapa vs. CIT(It&Tp), Kolkata

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

ITA 1310/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.Ta No.1303/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Mahesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (It&Tp), C/O Ibm India Private Limited Global Kolkata Process Services-1A, Tax Team Hr Delivery Centre ‘D1’, 4Th Floor, Manyata Business Park, Outer Ring Road, Nagawara, Karnataka-560045. (Pan:Apspk6683A) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1307/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Smt. Lisa Das Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bl-353, Sector-2, Salt Lake, Kolkata- (It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata. 700 091. (Pan: Amqpd7668B) Appellant Respondent I.Ta Nos.1309/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Samir Kumar Nayak Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), Sales Tax Office Lane, Balasore, Kolkata. Odisha-756001. (Pan: Afcpn5619M) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1310/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Balakalyan Chowdary Marathu Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 2/423-C, Mangalamitra, Rajampet, Kolkata. Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh-516115 (Pan: Asrpm6979R) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1312/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Biswajit Swain Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 60/4A, Haran Banerjee Lane, Kolkata. Konnagar, Hooghly, West Bengal- 712235 (Pan: Aysps1745C) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1313/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Azharul Haque Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Flat 6, Building 1, Sayed Ismail Lane, Tax (It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata. Ays- 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 192Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

…the Income-tax Officer cannot be held to be "erroneous" simply because in his order, he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.' 84. The aforesaid views expressed by the Bombay High Court was quoted in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167/[2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi). 85. He also drew our attention to a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437/131 Taxman 535, wherein the following views were expressed:-- "The expression "record" has also been defined in clause (b) of the Explanation so as to include all records r…

Samir Kumar Nayak, Balasore vs. CIT(It&Tp), Kolkata

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

ITA 1309/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.Ta No.1303/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Mahesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (It&Tp), C/O Ibm India Private Limited Global Kolkata Process Services-1A, Tax Team Hr Delivery Centre ‘D1’, 4Th Floor, Manyata Business Park, Outer Ring Road, Nagawara, Karnataka-560045. (Pan:Apspk6683A) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1307/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Smt. Lisa Das Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bl-353, Sector-2, Salt Lake, Kolkata- (It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata. 700 091. (Pan: Amqpd7668B) Appellant Respondent I.Ta Nos.1309/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Samir Kumar Nayak Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), Sales Tax Office Lane, Balasore, Kolkata. Odisha-756001. (Pan: Afcpn5619M) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1310/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Balakalyan Chowdary Marathu Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 2/423-C, Mangalamitra, Rajampet, Kolkata. Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh-516115 (Pan: Asrpm6979R) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1312/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Biswajit Swain Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 60/4A, Haran Banerjee Lane, Kolkata. Konnagar, Hooghly, West Bengal- 712235 (Pan: Aysps1745C) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1313/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Azharul Haque Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Flat 6, Building 1, Sayed Ismail Lane, Tax (It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata. Ays- 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 192Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

…the Income-tax Officer cannot be held to be "erroneous" simply because in his order, he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.' 84. The aforesaid views expressed by the Bombay High Court was quoted in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167/[2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi). 85. He also drew our attention to a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437/131 Taxman 535, wherein the following views were expressed:-- "The expression "record" has also been defined in clause (b) of the Explanation so as to include all records r…

Lisa Das, Kolkata vs. ACIT (It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

ITA 1307/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.Ta No.1303/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Mahesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (It&Tp), C/O Ibm India Private Limited Global Kolkata Process Services-1A, Tax Team Hr Delivery Centre ‘D1’, 4Th Floor, Manyata Business Park, Outer Ring Road, Nagawara, Karnataka-560045. (Pan:Apspk6683A) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1307/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Smt. Lisa Das Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bl-353, Sector-2, Salt Lake, Kolkata- (It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata. 700 091. (Pan: Amqpd7668B) Appellant Respondent I.Ta Nos.1309/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Samir Kumar Nayak Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), Sales Tax Office Lane, Balasore, Kolkata. Odisha-756001. (Pan: Afcpn5619M) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1310/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Balakalyan Chowdary Marathu Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 2/423-C, Mangalamitra, Rajampet, Kolkata. Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh-516115 (Pan: Asrpm6979R) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1312/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Biswajit Swain Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 60/4A, Haran Banerjee Lane, Kolkata. Konnagar, Hooghly, West Bengal- 712235 (Pan: Aysps1745C) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1313/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Azharul Haque Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Flat 6, Building 1, Sayed Ismail Lane, Tax (It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata. Ays- 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 192Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

…the Income-tax Officer cannot be held to be "erroneous" simply because in his order, he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.' 84. The aforesaid views expressed by the Bombay High Court was quoted in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167/[2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi). 85. He also drew our attention to a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437/131 Taxman 535, wherein the following views were expressed:-- "The expression "record" has also been defined in clause (b) of the Explanation so as to include all records r…

Mahesh Kumar, Bangalore vs. CIT(It&Tp), Kolkata

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

ITA 1303/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.Ta No.1303/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Mahesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (It&Tp), C/O Ibm India Private Limited Global Kolkata Process Services-1A, Tax Team Hr Delivery Centre ‘D1’, 4Th Floor, Manyata Business Park, Outer Ring Road, Nagawara, Karnataka-560045. (Pan:Apspk6683A) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1307/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Smt. Lisa Das Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bl-353, Sector-2, Salt Lake, Kolkata- (It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata. 700 091. (Pan: Amqpd7668B) Appellant Respondent I.Ta Nos.1309/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Samir Kumar Nayak Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), Sales Tax Office Lane, Balasore, Kolkata. Odisha-756001. (Pan: Afcpn5619M) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1310/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Balakalyan Chowdary Marathu Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 2/423-C, Mangalamitra, Rajampet, Kolkata. Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh-516115 (Pan: Asrpm6979R) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1312/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Biswajit Swain Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 60/4A, Haran Banerjee Lane, Kolkata. Konnagar, Hooghly, West Bengal- 712235 (Pan: Aysps1745C) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1313/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Azharul Haque Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Flat 6, Building 1, Sayed Ismail Lane, Tax (It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata. Ays- 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 192Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

…the Income-tax Officer cannot be held to be "erroneous" simply because in his order, he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.' 84. The aforesaid views expressed by the Bombay High Court was quoted in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167/[2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi). 85. He also drew our attention to a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437/131 Taxman 535, wherein the following views were expressed:-- "The expression "record" has also been defined in clause (b) of the Explanation so as to include all records r…

Invitrogen Bioservices India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Pr. CIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 868/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai, Judical Member

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT,DR
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…r had conducted inadequate enquiry or there was a lack of enquiry), has not been satisfied in the instant case The learned CIT has erred in not following the below mentioned judicial pronouncements- Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Sunbeam Auto  Ltd. [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi High Court)] Vegesina Kamala vs. Income-tax Officer [(2016)  157 ITD 457 (Visakhapatnam - Trib.)] ITA Nos.868 & 869(B)/2016 3 The learned CIT has erred in not appreciating the fact 5. the AO has allowed the claim of deduction under section 10B with respect to the Bioinformatics division after verifying the necessary documents and eligib…

Acc Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 977/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 263

…7] 396 ITR 244 (Bom.); ii) CIT v/s Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd., [2019] 102 taxmann.com 48 (Bom.); iii) CIT v/s Nirav Modi, [2017] 390 ITR 292 (Bom.); iv) Amira Enterprises Ltd. v/s PCIT, ITA no.3206/Del./2017 (Del.); v) CIT v/s Sunbeam Auto Ltd., [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Del.); vi) ITO v/s DG Housing Projects, [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Del.); vii) CIT v/s Vodafone Essar South Ltd., [2013] 212 Taxman 184 (Del.); viii) Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy v/s ITO, [2006] 100 ITD 173 (Mum.); and ix) Narayan Tatu Rane v/s ITO, [2-016] 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum.). 17. The leaned Counsel for the assessee submitted, in assessee’s own case, l…

Shri Mandeep Singh Dhillon, Bathinda vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 300/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.300/Asr/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Mandeep Singh Dhillon Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax #16310, Street No. 13/5 Dhillon Bathinda (Punjab). Colony, Barnala Bye Pass, Bathinda.

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Anand, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35A

…and adequate enquiry. An order cannot be said to be erroneous on the basis of the ground that a deeper enquiry should have been made, these principles were upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. 332 ITR 167 (Del.)”. Therefore we note that where the Assessing Officer has examined and enquired about assessee’s accounts and details filed by the assessee and applied his mind to the facts of the case and after being satisfied with all the details and documents, the Assessing Officer had framed the assessment merely for reason that Commissioner was not sa…

Sthapthya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 814/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 814/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Sthapathya Buildcon Pvt Ltd., D.C.I.T, Pavan Petroleum, Vs. Circle-4(1)(1), Nutun Mill Compund, Ahmedabad. Near City Gold Cinema, Saraspur, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aalcs8818G

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…has already considered the issue at large after raising the query and therefore, it is held that there is no scope of applying sec. 263. (f) Smt. Manita, Delhi ITAT in ITA No. 3432/2019 dated 12-07-2019, relevant para 6, wherein decision of Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del) and further stated that "Explanation 2" cannot be invoked in reference to inadequate inquiry and decision of D. G. Housing 343 ITR 329 (Del), finding is as per para 6 of the judgment and at page 10 of the judgement, it is held that "Explanation 2" is not applicable to the facts of the case. (g) Gujarat High Court in Aryan Arcade, 84 Taxmann…

Satya Prakash Sharma, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT, Kolkata - 12, Kolkata

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

ITA 2576/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…the Income-tax Officer cannot be held to be "erroneous" simply because in his order, he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.' 84. The aforesaid views expressed by the Bombay High Court was quoted in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167/[2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi). 85. He also drew our attention to a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437/131 Taxman 535, wherein the following views were expressed:-- "The expression "record" has also been defined in clause (b) of the Explanation so as to include all records rel…

Satya Prakash Sharma, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT, Kolkata - 12, Kolkata

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

ITA 2575/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…the Income-tax Officer cannot be held to be "erroneous" simply because in his order, he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.' 84. The aforesaid views expressed by the Bombay High Court was quoted in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167/[2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi). 85. He also drew our attention to a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437/131 Taxman 535, wherein the following views were expressed:-- "The expression "record" has also been defined in clause (b) of the Explanation so as to include all records rel…

Satya Prakash Sharma, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT, Kolkata - 12, Kolkata

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

ITA 2574/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…the Income-tax Officer cannot be held to be "erroneous" simply because in his order, he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.' 84. The aforesaid views expressed by the Bombay High Court was quoted in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167/[2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi). 85. He also drew our attention to a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437/131 Taxman 535, wherein the following views were expressed:-- "The expression "record" has also been defined in clause (b) of the Explanation so as to include all records rel…

Shri Debanjan Das Gupta, Kolkata vs. ACIT(It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

ITA 1315/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

…the Income-tax Officer cannot be held to be "erroneous" simply because in his order, he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.' 84. The aforesaid views expressed by the Bombay High Court was quoted in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167/[2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi). 85. He also drew our attention to a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437/131 Taxman 535, wherein the following views were expressed:-- "The expression "record" has also been defined in clause (b) of the Explanation so as to include all records r…

Shri Bodhisattava Chattopadhyay, Kolkata vs. CIT(It&Tp), Kolkata

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

ITA 1314/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

…the Income-tax Officer cannot be held to be "erroneous" simply because in his order, he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.' 84. The aforesaid views expressed by the Bombay High Court was quoted in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167/[2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi). 85. He also drew our attention to a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437/131 Taxman 535, wherein the following views were expressed:-- "The expression "record" has also been defined in clause (b) of the Explanation so as to include all records r…

Malay Ghosh, Midnapoire vs. ACIT(It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

ITA 1311/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

…the Income-tax Officer cannot be held to be "erroneous" simply because in his order, he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.' 84. The aforesaid views expressed by the Bombay High Court was quoted in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167/[2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi). 85. He also drew our attention to a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437/131 Taxman 535, wherein the following views were expressed:-- "The expression "record" has also been defined in clause (b) of the Explanation so as to include all records r…

Ravi Kiran Sinha, Dhanbad vs. ACIT(It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

ITA 1308/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

…the Income-tax Officer cannot be held to be "erroneous" simply because in his order, he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.' 84. The aforesaid views expressed by the Bombay High Court was quoted in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167/[2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi). 85. He also drew our attention to a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437/131 Taxman 535, wherein the following views were expressed:-- "The expression "record" has also been defined in clause (b) of the Explanation so as to include all records r…

Nayan Mukherjee, Kolkata vs. ACIT (It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

ITA 1306/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

…the Income-tax Officer cannot be held to be "erroneous" simply because in his order, he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.' 84. The aforesaid views expressed by the Bombay High Court was quoted in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167/[2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi). 85. He also drew our attention to a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437/131 Taxman 535, wherein the following views were expressed:-- "The expression "record" has also been defined in clause (b) of the Explanation so as to include all records r…

Shri Himadri Mallick, Kolkata vs. CIT (It&Tp), Kolkata

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

ITA 1304/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

…the Income-tax Officer cannot be held to be "erroneous" simply because in his order, he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.' 84. The aforesaid views expressed by the Bombay High Court was quoted in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167/[2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi). 85. He also drew our attention to a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437/131 Taxman 535, wherein the following views were expressed:-- "The expression "record" has also been defined in clause (b) of the Explanation so as to include all records r…