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.

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 167)

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 229/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…

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 228/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…

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 227/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…

M/S Debashu Services Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur vs. DCIT-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 369/NAG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

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…

Bagrrys India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 2, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3785/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, Adv. & Ms. SweetyFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-D.R

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…without finding that the assessment order is erroneous. In support he relied upon the following judgments:- (i) ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. 2012-TIOL-195-HC-DEL-IT (ii) PCIT Vs Modicare Ltd. 2017-TIOL-1946-HC-Del-IT (iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) (iv) Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd. – ITA No. 3205/Del/2017 dated 29.11.2017 10. On the other hand, learned Department Representative after referring to the various observations made in the impugned order submitted that in the instant case, Pr. CIT while conducting proceedings under section 263 has observed that AO had issued two questionnaires…

Rajesh Kumar, Hisar vs. CIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3337/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Rajesh Kumar, Vs. Cit, 1931, Gate No. 2, Behind Hisar M.G. Road, Hisar Pan :Aohpk1201L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Manoj Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Sulekha Verma, Cit(Dr)

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

…d. counsel submitted that section 263 cannot be invoked in cases where the Commissioner is looking for more Inquiry from his perspective and it can be invoked in case of no Inquiry only. He places reliance on following judgments: 1. CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167; 2. Gabrial India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) 13 3. DIT Vs. Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388 (Del.) 4. Income Tax Officer Vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd., 74 ITR 153 (Delh) 5. CIT Vs. Hero Auto Ltd., 74 DTR 164 (Del.) 6. CIT Vs. Hindustan Marketing and Advertising Co. Ltd., 7. Maya Gupta Vs. CIT, ITA No.5701/Del/2014, AY: 2009-10 4.2 On the other hand, t…

Sterling Addlife India Private Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Pr. CIT-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 967/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.967/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14) बनाम/ Sterling Addlife India The Pr.Cit-4 Pvt.Ltd. Ahmedabad Vs. Sterling Hospital Buildings Off Gurukul Road Memnagar Ahmedabad-380 052 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadca 0897 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Dinal Shah & A.C.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/01/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax–4, Ahmedabad [Cit In Short] Dated 28/03/2018 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Dinal Shah & A.C.Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…ITAT) (Relevant Para of page 7 of the order) 4. Sansspareils Greenlands Pvt. Ltd. v/s. CIT 99 Taxman.com 222 (Delhi ITAT) (Relevant Para 5. To 5.9) 5. CIT v/s. Gabrial India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bombay-High Court) 6. CIT v/s. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (Delhi High Court) 332 ITR 167 (inadequate inquiry can not empowered CIT with revisional powers) 7. Netafim Irrigation India Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Pr. CIT-2, Baroda, ITA No. 864/Ahd/2016. Sterling Addlife India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT Asst.Year – 2013-14 16. The copy of the final sale deed dated 31st May, 2016 translated in English is attached. 17. The copy of order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.…

Smt. Dolly Batra, Dehradun vs. Pr. CIT, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1214/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263

…terest of the Revenue. In support of this submission, Ld. Counsel for assessee relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex 395 ITR 1 and judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167. Ld. Counsel for assessee also relied upon order of ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Smt. T. Urmila Vs. ITO 57 SOT 90 in which it was held as under: “IT: Where Hyderabad Airport Development Authority had been constituted under provisions of Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 as a Special Area Development Authority by State Gov…

Smt. Dolly Batra, Dehradun vs. Pr. CIT, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1213/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263

…terest of the Revenue. In support of this submission, Ld. Counsel for assessee relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex 395 ITR 1 and judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167. Ld. Counsel for assessee also relied upon order of ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Smt. T. Urmila Vs. ITO 57 SOT 90 in which it was held as under: “IT: Where Hyderabad Airport Development Authority had been constituted under provisions of Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 as a Special Area Development Authority by State Gov…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. Prcit-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1764/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2013-14] & [A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Sr Adv

Section 263

…been held in various decisions that where the A.O has taken a possible view, the assessment order cannot be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 68. We find 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 pass…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. Prcit-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1763/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2013-14] & [A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Sr Adv

Section 263

…been held in various decisions that where the A.O has taken a possible view, the assessment order cannot be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 68. We find 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 pass…

M/S. Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3376/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Smt Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2012-13] M/S Celebi Delhi Cargo Management Vs. The Pr.C.I.T-2 India Pvt. Ltd New Delhi R. No. Ce-05, First Floor, Import Building – Ii, International Cargo Terminal, Igi Airport, New Delhi Pan : Aadcc 6885 B [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2019

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT- DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

…im of deduction in detail, therefore, the ld. PCIT was justified in exercising the power conferred upon him by section 263 of the Act. 21. In our considered opinion, the ld. DR is given by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 wherein the Hon'ble High Court was considering the aspect, when there is no proper or full verification and it has held as under: “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 Inc…

M/S Mysore Minerals Limited, Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 464/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 43B

…as duly considered all the aspects and has not made any addition and, therefore, the CIT ought not to have invoked his powers u/s 263 of the Act. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT VS. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., Ltd. 332 ITR 167, wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that there is a difference between ‘lack of enquiry’ and ‘no enquiry’ the Hon’ble Court held that jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act can be invoked only in the case of ‘no enquiry’ made by the AO and not in case where the enquiries were made by the AO but the CIT construes them to be in adequate. The ld counsel…

Ramesh Kumar Goyal HUF, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Hisar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1983/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaidr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar Ito, H.No.467, Urban Estate-Ii, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…2 (SC). It was argued that Similar view has been taken by Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator India Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 231 (Del). 6. The Ld.AR has also relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 (Del)where in it was held that AO in the assessing 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 mind before allowing the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. It was held that that one has to keep in min…

Ramesh Kumar, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Hisar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaidr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar Ito, H.No.467, Urban Estate-Ii, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…2 (SC). It was argued that Similar view has been taken by Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator India Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 231 (Del). 6. The Ld.AR has also relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 (Del)where in it was held that AO in the assessing 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 mind before allowing the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. It was held that that one has to keep in min…

M/S. Sri Balaji Forgings (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 3216/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Advocates &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R

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

…out 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 30 ITA.No.3216/Del./2017 Sri Balaji Forgings (P)…

Arun Kumar Garg HUF, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 13, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3391/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Arun Kumar Garg Huf, Vs Pr. Cit, G-20/24, Sector-7, Delhi-13, Rohini, New Delhi. New Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By: Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Assessee By: Smt. Aparna Karan, C.I.T. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.01.2019

For Appellant: Smt. Aparna Karan, C.I.T. DRFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Gupta, CA

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

…icer to decide the extent of inquiry to be made and it is his satisfaction which is required under the law. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. 8 Assessment year 2014-15 Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in (2010) reported in 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) has held that if there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would by itself not give occasion to the Commissioner to pass order u/s 263 of the Act merely because the Commissioner had a different opinion in the matter. It is a settled law that the Ld. Pr.CIT cannot pass the order u/s 263 on the ground that thorough inquiry should have…

Jitinder Singh Chadha, New Delhi vs. Prcit-18, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. Cit-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpc6181D Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit-18, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble Vice President and Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Judicial Member ITA No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. CIT-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABPC6181D Assessee by : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CA Revenue by : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 31.03.2018 of ld. Pr. CIT-18, New De…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Technip Uk Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection is allowed

ITA 1116/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT-DR

Section 44BSection 44DSection 9

…t has been held in various decisions that where the A.O has taken a possible view, the assessment order cannot be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We find 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…

Alok Kumar Sarkar, Hooghly vs. CIT, Kolkata-8, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 454/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Alok Kumar Sarkar..................………...................................…..……………….…...……..…….............Appellant C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Seben Brothers’ Lodge P.O. Buroshibtala P.S. Chinsurah Dist. Hooghly Pin – 712 105 [Pan : Akkps 9552 R] Vs. Commissioner Of Income-(8), Kolkata...............................................………………...…...........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 6Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 40A(3)

…nce u/s 40A(3) of the Act, 14A of the Act and on the LTCG and STCG, disclosed by the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (supra), in the case of Jyoti Foundation (supra) and in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Delhi), has clearly laid down the difference between lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry. It has clearly held that an order cannot be held to be erroneous on the ground that certain issues require further enquiry. In the case of Jyoti Foundation (supra) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi Court in the cas…

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.

What is CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.

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

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

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

M/S Debashu Services Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur vs. DCIT-Circle-1, Nagpur

Bagrrys India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 2, New Delhi

Rajesh Kumar, Hisar vs. CIT, Hisar

Sterling Addlife India Private Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Pr. CIT-4, Ahmedabad

Smt. Dolly Batra, Dehradun vs. Pr. CIT, Dehradun

Smt. Dolly Batra, Dehradun vs. Pr. CIT, Dehradun

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. Prcit-16, New Delhi

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. Prcit-16, New Delhi

M/S. Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 2, New Delhi

M/S Mysore Minerals Limited, Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

Ramesh Kumar Goyal HUF, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Hisar

Ramesh Kumar, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Hisar

M/S. Sri Balaji Forgings (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

Arun Kumar Garg HUF, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 13, New Delhi

Jitinder Singh Chadha, New Delhi vs. Prcit-18, New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Technip Uk Ltd., Mumbai

Alok Kumar Sarkar, Hooghly vs. CIT, Kolkata-8, Kolkata