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.

Sudarshan Zumbarlal Bafna, Ahmednagar vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1272/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1272/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sudarshan Zumbarlal Bafna, Bafna Path, Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar, Pin-413709. Pan : Aavpb3556D .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Vipin GujarathiFor Respondent: Mrs. Nandita Kanchan
Section 142(1)Section 263Section 54F

…sessing Officer is not erroneous and also not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. For this proposition, the Ld. AR has placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs. Fine Jewellery (I) Ltd., 372 ITR 303 (Bom.) (ii) CIT Vs.Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) 5.1 The Ld. AR of the assessee further took us to the assessment order and referred to Paras 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 and submitted that it is evident that the Assessing Officer had asked to produce evidences in support of sale consideration, cost of acquisition and proof of deduction u/s.54F of the Act in 4 A.Y.2012-13 respect of sale of…

Citystar Ganguly Projects LLP, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 9, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1103/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm ]

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

…n this regard find support in the following judgments: - DIT vs Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388 (Del) - ITO vs DG Housing Projects Ltd reported in 343 ITR 329 - CIT vs Ashish Rajpal reported in 320 ITR 674 (Del) - CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del) - CIT vs R.K.Construction Co. reported in 313 ITR 65 (Guj) 14 I.T.A No.1103/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 16. For these reasons, we are of the considered view that the assessment order is not the result of non-application of mind or any inadequate enquiry. We are also of the considered opinion that while passing the assessment order the AO did not…

M/S. La Opala RG Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Range - 12, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 559/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80ISection 80l

…e, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income­tax Officer is unsustainable in law". 7. 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, according to ld AR, for argument sake, even if it is held that the AO had made inadequate inquiry, then also powers under section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked under the fact…

Sanjay Kumar Daryani, Indore vs. Pr CIT -1, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 563/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjay Kumar Daryani Pr. Cit-1 505, Emerald Court C-Block Indore बनाम/ Sanjana Park Vs. Near Agrawal Public School Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aiopd3135D

Section 143(3)Section 263

…[ITA No.563/Ind/2019] [Shri Sanjay Kumar Daryani, Indore] 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: 2014-15 Shri Sanjay Kumar Daryani Pr. CIT-1 505, Emerald Court C-Block Indore बनाम/ Sanjana Park Vs. Near Agrawal Public School Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AIOPD3135D Appellant by Shri Girish Agrawal & Miss Nisha Lahori, A.Rs Respondent by Smt. Ashima Gupta, D.R. Date of Hearing: 09.10.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 24.10.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL…

Essar Shipping Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3156/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Essar Shipping Limited V. Pr. Cit-5 Essar House, 11, K.K. Marg Room No. 501 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 034 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aacce3707D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department By : Shri D.G. Pansari

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari
Section 143(1)Section 144C(1)Section 263Section 92C

…sions made by the assessee along with the evidences were not even examined by the Ld. Pr.CIT before arriving at the conclusion that the Assessment Order passed is erroneous. 35. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in 332 ITR 167 held that if there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would by itself not give rise to the Commissioner to pass order u/s. 263 of the Act merely because the Commissioner had different opinion in the matter. It is a settled law that the Ld. Pr.CIT cannot pass order u/s. 263 of the Act on the ground that thorough enquiry should have been made b…

DCIT, Circle-10(1) vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corp. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4432/DEL/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2000-2001

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

…TR 44 (Del) e) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) f) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. 333 ITR 547 HC (Del) g) CIT vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 (P&H HC) h) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT 32 ITR 92 (Bom HC) i) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 227 CTR 133 (Del HC) The Ld. AR further submitted that without prejudice to the earlier contentions, once the business had commenced and even if the aforesaid income is held assessable under the head ‘income from other sources’ that will make no difference in as much as business loss will go up and the same has to be set off from the purported income from o…

Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1153/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

…TR 44 (Del) e) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) f) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. 333 ITR 547 HC (Del) g) CIT vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 (P&H HC) h) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT 32 ITR 92 (Bom HC) i) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 227 CTR 133 (Del HC) The Ld. AR further submitted that without prejudice to the earlier contentions, once the business had commenced and even if the aforesaid income is held assessable under the head ‘income from other sources’ that will make no difference in as much as business loss will go up and the same has to be set off from the purported income from o…

DCIT, Circle-10(1) vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4433/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

…TR 44 (Del) e) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) f) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. 333 ITR 547 HC (Del) g) CIT vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 (P&H HC) h) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT 32 ITR 92 (Bom HC) i) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 227 CTR 133 (Del HC) The Ld. AR further submitted that without prejudice to the earlier contentions, once the business had commenced and even if the aforesaid income is held assessable under the head ‘income from other sources’ that will make no difference in as much as business loss will go up and the same has to be set off from the purported income from o…

Dipal Piyush Palkiwala, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 3462/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.839/Ahd/2015 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3462/Ahd/2016 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dipal Piyush Palkhiwala, Ito Ward-4(4) 27, Rivera Greens, 1St Floor, Vs Gokuldham Navjeevan Trust Building Sarkhej-Sanand Road, Sanathal, Ahmedabad-380014 Ahmedabad-382210 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Rita Dokania, Cit- Dr

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Rita Dokania, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…uite relevant to adjudicate the issue before us. 15. The scope of the Commissioner's power of revision under section 263 has been a matter of judicial consideration on various ocassions. In case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in 332 ITR 167 Division Bench of Delhi High Court observed as under: "12. ... ... ... There are judgements galore laying down the principle that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order is not required to give detailed reason in respect of each and every item of deduction etc. Therefore, one has to see from the record as to whether there was application of…

Dipal Piyush Palkiwala, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 839/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.839/Ahd/2015 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3462/Ahd/2016 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dipal Piyush Palkhiwala, Ito Ward-4(4) 27, Rivera Greens, 1St Floor, Vs Gokuldham Navjeevan Trust Building Sarkhej-Sanand Road, Sanathal, Ahmedabad-380014 Ahmedabad-382210 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Rita Dokania, Cit- Dr

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Rita Dokania, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…uite relevant to adjudicate the issue before us. 15. The scope of the Commissioner's power of revision under section 263 has been a matter of judicial consideration on various ocassions. In case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in 332 ITR 167 Division Bench of Delhi High Court observed as under: "12. ... ... ... There are judgements galore laying down the principle that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order is not required to give detailed reason in respect of each and every item of deduction etc. Therefore, one has to see from the record as to whether there was application of…

Shri. A R Rahman, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2 (4), Chennai

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

ITA 1745/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr.Sridhar Dora, JCITFor Respondent: 09.07.2019
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद य के सम( BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1745/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Shri A.R.Rahman, The Asst. Commissioner Of C/o.M/s.PASS Associates, Income Tax, No.90, Armenian Street, 4th Floor, Central Circle-2(4), “Orient Chambers”, Chennai. Chennai-600 001. [PAN: ADMPR 0060 J] (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,यथ*/Respondent) : Mr.D.Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ* क- ओर से/ Appell…

The Jt. CIT, Range-4, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Mastek Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 514/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Murari, CIT- D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms MADHUMITA ROY,JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA No(s) Appeal(s) by Asset. Nos Year(s) Appellant vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/s Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (OSD)-1,Circle-4, 804/805, President Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 PAN:AAACM9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/s. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. IT(TP) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/s. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad R…

Mastek Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT, Rang4, Ahmedabad

ITA 172/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Murari, CIT- D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms MADHUMITA ROY,JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA No(s) Appeal(s) by Asset. Nos Year(s) Appellant vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/s Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (OSD)-1,Circle-4, 804/805, President Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 PAN:AAACM9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/s. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. IT(TP) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/s. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad R…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Mastek Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 1852/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Murari, CIT- D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms MADHUMITA ROY,JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA No(s) Appeal(s) by Asset. Nos Year(s) Appellant vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/s Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (OSD)-1,Circle-4, 804/805, President Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 PAN:AAACM9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/s. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. IT(TP) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/s. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad R…

Mastek Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, (OSD) - 1, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 1188/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Murari, CIT- D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms MADHUMITA ROY,JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA No(s) Appeal(s) by Asset. Nos Year(s) Appellant vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/s Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (OSD)-1,Circle-4, 804/805, President Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 PAN:AAACM9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/s. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. IT(TP) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/s. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad R…

Winvest Holdings (I) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1519/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Chny/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. M/S. Winvest Holdings (I) Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of D-16, 2Nd Floor, Nelson Chambers, Income Tax, No.115 Nelson Manickam Road, Corporate Circle 3(2), Aminjikarai, Chennai. Chennai 600 029. [Pan Aaacw 7724Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…tended that mere inadequate enquiry by the Assessing Officer does not confer jurisdiction of revision u/s.263 on the ld. PCIT. Reliance in this regard was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd (2011) 332 ITR 167. Finally it is submitted that in garb of exercising powers u/s.263 of the Act, PCIT ITA No.1519 /2019 :- 9 -: cannot initiate proceedings with a view to start fishing and roving enquiries in the matters or orders which are already concluded. Further, it is submitted that there was no loss of revenue as the payees have paid the taxes thereon.…

Everest Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. CIT -I, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 532/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Soumeh Adak &For Respondent: Shri A. Mohan (CIT)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : A.Y : 2010-11 M/s. Everest Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Genesis, A-32, Mohan Co-operative Thane 400 604. (Respondent) Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044. PAN : AAACE7550N (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri Soumeh Adak & Shri Ashish Jhawar Respondent by : Shri A. Mohan (CIT) Date of Hearing : 24/06/2019 Date of Pronouncement : 21/08/2019 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT This appeal by the assessee is directed against the orde…

Manita, Muzaffarnagar vs. Prcit, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 3432/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Venkatesh ChaurasiaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Shivam, CIT-D.R
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…l for the Assessee submitted that since due enquiries have been made by the A.O. but the Pr. CIT is trying to impose her view on the plausible view taken by the A.O. which is not permissible under the Law. She has relied upon CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Del.). Learned Counsel for the Assessee also relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd., [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom.). She has also submitted that Ld. Pr. CIT has invoked Explanation-2 to Section 263 of the I.T. Act which cannot be invoked in the case of inadequate enquiry and also this Explanation is applic…

M/S. Dwarkadhis Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Bhiwani vs. CIT, Hisar

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

ITA 3097/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2006-07 Dwarkadhis Buildwell Pvt. Ltd Cit C/O N. K. Jain, Advocate Naya Vs Hisar Bazar, Bhiwani Pan No. Aaccd1951E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Naveen Gupta Ca Shri Ashu Goyal, Ca Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain, Ca Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 16/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 01/07/2019 Order

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dwarkadhis Buildwell Pvt. Ltd CIT C/o N. K. jain, Advocate Naya Vs Hisar Bazar, Bhiwani PAN No. AACCD1951E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Shri Naveen Gupta CA Shri Ashu Goyal, CA Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain, CA Respondent by Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR Date of hearing: 16/04/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 01/07/2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.03.2014 pased u/s. 263 of the…

Goldcity Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 14, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2179/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhgoldcity Properties Pvt. Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of [Now Merged With Supergold Vs. Income-Tax -14, R. No. 415, 4Th Floor, Properties Pvt. Ltd.], Shop No.1, Building No.2, Aayakar Bhavan, Sharmik Chs Ltd., Tilak M.K. Road, Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400089. Pan: Aaccg1757H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel (AR)For Respondent: Shri B. Jaya Kumar (CIT-DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 152(2)Section 254(1)Section 263

…012 dated 31.10.2013, 11 ITA No. 2179 Mum 2019- Goldcity Properties Pvt. Ltd. (v) CIT Vs Gabriel India ( 203 ITR 108 Bom), (vi) CIT Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd ( 323 ITR 206 Bom), (vii) CIT Vs Max India (295 ITR 282 SC), (viii) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd ( 332 ITR 167 Delhi), (ix) CIT Vs Vikas Polymers (341 ITR 537 Delhi), (x) CIT Vs Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502 Guj), (xi) Malabar Industrial Company Vs CIT (243 ITR 83 SC), (xii) Mehta Trading Vs CIT ( ITA No. 2838/M/2013 dated 31.10.2014, (xiii) PCIT Vs Ginger Properties (P) Ltd. (396 ITR 496 Guj), (xiv) Pyre Lal Jaiswal Vs CIT (146 ITD 555 Allahabad), (xv) R…