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 367,515 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.

Futuristic Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Prcit (Central), Gurugram

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

ITA 1043/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2009-10] M/S Futuristic Sales [P] Ltd Vs. The Pr. C.I.T Flat No. 97, Sfs, First Floor Central Ashok Vihar, Phase – Iv Gurgaon New Delhi Pan No: Aaacf 6597 N [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 148Section 263

…rt of the Assessing Officer to disclose his satisfaction in the Assessment Order passed thereon. Thus, this objection on the part of the Revenue cannot be accepted.” 23. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto reported in 332 ITR 167 has held as held as under: “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 CIT under s. 263 of the IT Act. As noted above, the submission of learned counsel for the Revenue was that while passi…

The ACIT, Cen-Circle-1, Kozhikkode vs. M/S.Ardra Associates, Thrissur

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

ITA 379/COCH/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…takenby the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The Ld. AR also relied on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 114 CTR (Bom) 81. ii)Iron Trading Co vs. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan reported in 2016 (3) KLT SN 4 (C. No.3) wherein it was held as und…

The ACIT, Cen-Circle-1, Kozhikkode vs. M/S.Ardra Associates, Thrissur

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

ITA 378/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…takenby the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The Ld. AR also relied on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 114 CTR (Bom) 81. ii)Iron Trading Co vs. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan reported in 2016 (3) KLT SN 4 (C. No.3) wherein it was held as und…

The ACIT, Cen-Circle-1, Kozhikkode vs. M/S.Ardra Associates, Thrissur

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

ITA 377/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…takenby the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The Ld. AR also relied on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 114 CTR (Bom) 81. ii)Iron Trading Co vs. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan reported in 2016 (3) KLT SN 4 (C. No.3) wherein it was held as und…

The ACIT, Cen-Circle-1, Kozhikkode vs. M/S.Ardra Associates, Thrissur

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

ITA 376/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…takenby the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The Ld. AR also relied on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 114 CTR (Bom) 81. ii)Iron Trading Co vs. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan reported in 2016 (3) KLT SN 4 (C. No.3) wherein it was held as und…

The ACIT, Cen-Circle-1, Kozhikkode vs. M/S.Ardra Associates, Thrissur

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

ITA 375/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…takenby the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The Ld. AR also relied on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 114 CTR (Bom) 81. ii)Iron Trading Co vs. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan reported in 2016 (3) KLT SN 4 (C. No.3) wherein it was held as und…

The ACIT, Cen-Circle-1, Kozhikkode vs. M/S.Ardra Associates, Thrissur

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

ITA 374/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…takenby the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The Ld. AR also relied on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 114 CTR (Bom) 81. ii)Iron Trading Co vs. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan reported in 2016 (3) KLT SN 4 (C. No.3) wherein it was held as und…

M/S.Ardra Associates, Trichur vs. The DCIT, Calicut

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

ITA 499/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…takenby the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The Ld. AR also relied on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 114 CTR (Bom) 81. ii)Iron Trading Co vs. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan reported in 2016 (3) KLT SN 4 (C. No.3) wherein it was held as und…

M/S.Ardra Associates, Trichur vs. The DCIT, Calicut

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

ITA 498/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…takenby the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The Ld. AR also relied on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 114 CTR (Bom) 81. ii)Iron Trading Co vs. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan reported in 2016 (3) KLT SN 4 (C. No.3) wherein it was held as und…

M/S.Ardra Associates, Trichur vs. The DCIT, Calicut

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

ITA 497/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…takenby the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The Ld. AR also relied on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 114 CTR (Bom) 81. ii)Iron Trading Co vs. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan reported in 2016 (3) KLT SN 4 (C. No.3) wherein it was held as und…

M/S.Ardra Associates, Trichur vs. The DCIT, Calicut

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

ITA 496/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…takenby the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The Ld. AR also relied on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 114 CTR (Bom) 81. ii)Iron Trading Co vs. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan reported in 2016 (3) KLT SN 4 (C. No.3) wherein it was held as und…

M/S.Ardra Associates, Trichur vs. The DCIT(, Trivandrum

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

ITA 495/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…takenby the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The Ld. AR also relied on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 114 CTR (Bom) 81. ii)Iron Trading Co vs. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan reported in 2016 (3) KLT SN 4 (C. No.3) wherein it was held as und…

Sheth Commercial Co., Kolkata vs. CIT-14 Kolkata, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1406/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata16 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Sheth Commercial Co. V/S. Pr. Cit-14, C/O D.J. Shah & Co. 3, Government Place, Kalyan Bhavan, 2 Elgin Kolkata-700001 Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan No.Aakfs 409 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Shrhari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-04-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-14, Kolkata’S Order Dated 20.03.2017 Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame Afresh Assessment After Setting Aside The Regular One Framed Dated 23.03.2015 In Exercising Revision Jurisdiction Vested U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). We Have Heard Shri Miraj D Shah Learned Authorized Representative For Assessee & Shri P.K.Srihari, Cit/Dr Appearing At Revenue’S Behest. Case File Perused. 2. It Transpires During The Course Of Hearing That The Assessee’S Pleading Challenge Correctness Of The Pcit’S Order Revising The Regular Assessment In Issue Framed By The Assessing Officer On 06.07.2016 With Directions To Frame

Section 1Section 263Section 35(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2012-13 Sheth Commercial Co. V/s. Pr. CIT-14, C/o D.J. Shah & Co. 3, Government Place, Kalyan Bhavan, 2 Elgin Kolkata-700001 Road, Kolkata-700020 [PAN No.AAKFS 409 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Shrhari, CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 16-04-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O…

Sh. Asrar Ahmed, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3279/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri SomilFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-D.R
Section 148Section 263

…a conclusion that, either the Assessing Officer’s inquiry was not proper or there is any inherent lack of application of mind. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the following cases:- i) DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Del); ii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Del); and 16 I.T.A. No.3279/DEL/2017 iii) ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd, 343 ITR 329 (Del), has categorically held, the revising authority must make an inquiry before making a believe that assessment order was erroneous and without making any such inquiry he cannot remand back the issue once again to conduct the inquiry when Assessing Offic…

M/S. Conton Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 9, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2742/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2019AY 2010-11
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘B’, New Delhi Before: Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 Conton Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd., vs. Principal C.I.T. – 9, (Now known as VNG Packaging New Delhi Pvt. Ltd.), 206, Vardhman Shrenik Plaza, LSP, Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, New Delhi. PAN: AACCC9563D (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Sh. Raj Kumar, C.A. and Sh. Rajeev Ahuja, C.A. Respondent Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, by CIT/DR Date of Hearing 27.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement 08.04.2019 ORDER Per Amit Shukla, J.M.: The aforesaid appeal has been fil…

M/S Debashu Services Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 262/NAG/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Mar 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.369/Nag/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010–11 Debashu Services Pvt. Ltd., 18, Saptak Plaza, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur–440010. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacd6682J बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle–1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.259 To 262/Nag/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006–07 To 2008–09 & 2012–13 M/S. Debashu Services Pvt. Ltd., 18, Saptak Plaza, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur–440010. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacd6682J बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle–1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.227 To 230/Nag/2017

For Appellant: Shri C. J. Thakar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri R. K. Baral, Jt.CIT

…be a case of “no enquiry” at all, but at best could alleged to be a case of “inadequate enquiry”, but not absolutely correct. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion and the factual matrix of the case, we studied a precedent cited as Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.). In the said decision it was held that if there was an enquiry, even inadequate, would not by itself give occasion to the C.I.T. to pass order under section 263 of I.T. Act. According to the Hon’ble Court an action under section 263 is open only in cases where there was “lack of enquiry” by the Assessing Officer. We have also examined the…

M/S Debashu Services Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 261/NAG/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Mar 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.369/Nag/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010–11 Debashu Services Pvt. Ltd., 18, Saptak Plaza, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur–440010. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacd6682J बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle–1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.259 To 262/Nag/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006–07 To 2008–09 & 2012–13 M/S. Debashu Services Pvt. Ltd., 18, Saptak Plaza, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur–440010. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacd6682J बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle–1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.227 To 230/Nag/2017

For Appellant: Shri C. J. Thakar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri R. K. Baral, Jt.CIT

…be a case of “no enquiry” at all, but at best could alleged to be a case of “inadequate enquiry”, but not absolutely correct. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion and the factual matrix of the case, we studied a precedent cited as Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.). In the said decision it was held that if there was an enquiry, even inadequate, would not by itself give occasion to the C.I.T. to pass order under section 263 of I.T. Act. According to the Hon’ble Court an action under section 263 is open only in cases where there was “lack of enquiry” by the Assessing Officer. We have also examined the…

M/S Debashu Services Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 260/NAG/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Mar 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.369/Nag/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010–11 Debashu Services Pvt. Ltd., 18, Saptak Plaza, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur–440010. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacd6682J बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle–1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.259 To 262/Nag/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006–07 To 2008–09 & 2012–13 M/S. Debashu Services Pvt. Ltd., 18, Saptak Plaza, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur–440010. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacd6682J बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle–1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.227 To 230/Nag/2017

For Appellant: Shri C. J. Thakar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri R. K. Baral, Jt.CIT

…be a case of “no enquiry” at all, but at best could alleged to be a case of “inadequate enquiry”, but not absolutely correct. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion and the factual matrix of the case, we studied a precedent cited as Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.). In the said decision it was held that if there was an enquiry, even inadequate, would not by itself give occasion to the C.I.T. to pass order under section 263 of I.T. Act. According to the Hon’ble Court an action under section 263 is open only in cases where there was “lack of enquiry” by the Assessing Officer. We have also examined the…

M/S Debashu Services Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 259/NAG/2017[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Mar 2019AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.369/Nag/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010–11 Debashu Services Pvt. Ltd., 18, Saptak Plaza, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur–440010. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacd6682J बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle–1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.259 To 262/Nag/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006–07 To 2008–09 & 2012–13 M/S. Debashu Services Pvt. Ltd., 18, Saptak Plaza, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur–440010. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacd6682J बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle–1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.227 To 230/Nag/2017

For Appellant: Shri C. J. Thakar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri R. K. Baral, Jt.CIT

…be a case of “no enquiry” at all, but at best could alleged to be a case of “inadequate enquiry”, but not absolutely correct. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion and the factual matrix of the case, we studied a precedent cited as Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.). In the said decision it was held that if there was an enquiry, even inadequate, would not by itself give occasion to the C.I.T. to pass order under section 263 of I.T. Act. According to the Hon’ble Court an action under section 263 is open only in cases where there was “lack of enquiry” by the Assessing Officer. We have also examined the…

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Nagpur vs. M/S Debashu Services Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 230/NAG/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Mar 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.369/Nag/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010–11 Debashu Services Pvt. Ltd., 18, Saptak Plaza, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur–440010. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacd6682J बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle–1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.259 To 262/Nag/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006–07 To 2008–09 & 2012–13 M/S. Debashu Services Pvt. Ltd., 18, Saptak Plaza, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur–440010. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacd6682J बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle–1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.227 To 230/Nag/2017

For Appellant: Shri C. J. Thakar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri R. K. Baral, Jt.CIT

…be a case of “no enquiry” at all, but at best could alleged to be a case of “inadequate enquiry”, but not absolutely correct. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion and the factual matrix of the case, we studied a precedent cited as Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.). In the said decision it was held that if there was an enquiry, even inadequate, would not by itself give occasion to the C.I.T. to pass order under section 263 of I.T. Act. According to the Hon’ble Court an action under section 263 is open only in cases where there was “lack of enquiry” by the Assessing Officer. We have also examined the…