How many judgments cite CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.?

897 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (332 ITR 167), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 57(iv), Section 56(2)(viii), Section 10(37).

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.

332 ITR 167High Court2011#54 most cited

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

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment under Section 263 merely because the assessment order does not explicitly reflect an inquiry, or because the Commissioner holds a different opinion. An inquiry, even if considered inadequate, or an assessment based on a plausible view by the Assessing Officer after due examination, does not automatically make the order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

897

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,514 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. · Sunbeam Auto Ltd. · Section 263 · Commissioner revisionary powers · lack of enquiry · inadequate enquiry · plausible view AO · not prejudicial to revenue · assessment order detail · different opinion Commissioner · 143(3) scrutiny assessment

Also reported as

189 Taxmann 436227 CTR 13331 DTR 189 Taxmann.com 191

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 57(iv)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 147

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 145b section 45(5)section 145a(b)section 57(iv)inadequate enquiry section 56(2)(viii)lack of enquiry section 10(37)enhanced compensation malabar industrial section 263(1)section 145a

Judgments citing CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.

G. Venkata Krishna, Vijayawada vs. The ITO, Vijayawada

In the result, appeals of the assessees for the Assessment Years 2010-

ITA 32/VIZ/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.31& 33/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12) G.Venkata Krishna Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Ghantasala Manikyala Rao Cards Ward-1 11-25-167, Main Road, One Town Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan :Acppg1246F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.32/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) G.Venkata Raman Income Tax Officer Partner.Sri Dhanalakshmi Ward-1(1) Stationery Mart Vijayawada 11-54-225, Jai Hind Market Main Road, One Town, Vijayawada [Pan :Acppg1245G] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.34 & 35/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S Sri Vijayalakshmi Stationery & Income Tax Officer Fancy Mart, D.No.11-25-167 Ward-1(1) Main Road, Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan :Aaifs1693M] निर्धाऩिती की ओि से/ Assessee By : Shri C.Subramanyam, Ar िधजस्व की ओि से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr सुिवधई की तधिीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2018 घोषणध की तधिीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2018

For Appellant: Shri C.Subramanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

….Venkata Raman and Sri Vijayalakshmi Stationery & Fancy Mart Ltd., Vijayawada in the case of Vegesina Komala Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Palakol (supra) has taken the similar view following the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxmann 436 (Delhi). Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the revenue did not make out a case for revision and there was no error in the order passed by the AO. Hence, the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld.Pr.CIT and allow the a…

G. Venkata Krishna, Vijayawada vs. The ITO, Vijayawada

In the result, appeals of the assessees for the Assessment Years 2010-

ITA 31/VIZ/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2018AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri C.Subramanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

The J.K. Trust Bombay, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3769/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 263

…ul Construction Company vs ITO (ITA No.1250/Pn/2009), CIT vs Vandana Properties (2012) 353 ITR 36 (Bom.) and various decisions were considered and finally decided in favour of the assessee. 2.12. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 order dated 11/09/2009, after considering various decisions, made an elaborate discussion and decided in favour of the assessee by holding that there is distinction between “lack of enquiry” and “inadequate enquiry” and hold that if there is an enquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the CIT to pass order us/ 263,…

Maharashtra Airport Development, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80I

…htra Airport Development Company Ltd. No.1250/Pn/2009), CIT vs Vandana Properties (2012) 353 ITR 36 (Bom.) and various decisions were considered and finally decided in favour of the assessee. 3.2. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 order dated 11/09/2009, after considering various decisions, made an elaborate discussion and decided in favour of the assessee by holding that there is distinction between “lack of enquiry” and “inadequate enquiry” and hold that if there is an enquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the CIT to pass order us/ 263,…

Manoir Petro India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

ITA 2626/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manoir Petro India Limited, Pr. Cit-1 602, B-Wing, Universal Room No.387, बनाम/ Business Park, Chandivali 3Rd Floor, Vs. Farm Road, Off Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aafcm5210J

Section 263

…. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) (para 14), xxviii. Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 921/2 Taxman 417 (SC) (para 15), xxix. Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1966] 60 ITR 262 (SC) (para 15), xxx. CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167/[2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (para 16), xxxi. Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. ITO [1978] 115 ITR 799 (Cal.) (para 17), xxxii. Vijay Mallya v. Asstt. CIT [2003] 131 Taxman 477 (Cal.) (para 17), xxxiii. CIT v. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 593/225 Taxman 17 (Mag.)/46 taxmann.com 215 (Cal.) (para 17), xxxiv. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2…

Vijay Kundu, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 808/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 808/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Vijay Kundu, Vs Pr. Cit, C/O Raj Kumar & Associates, Delhi-21, Cas, L-7A (Lgf), South Ext., New Delhi Part-2, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajnpk7914P Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2016 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-21, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 263

…case laws: " DCIT Vs Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Del.) " Jagjit Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT 60 ITD 295 (Del.) " Y. V. Ramana Vs CIT (2017) 183 TTJ (Vishaka) 337 " CIT Vs Hindustan Marketing and Advertising Co. Ltd. 341 ITR 180 (Del.) " CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.) " CIT Vs Anil Kumar Sharma 38 DTR 305 (Del.) " Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. 243 ITR 83 (SC) " CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. 332 ITR 332 (Del.) " DIT Vs Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Del.) " CIT Vs Gabrial India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) 18. In his rival submissions, the ld. CIT DR strongly supported the order of the ld. CIT and submitted th…

Saigal Sea Trade, Mumbai vs. CIT -18, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2511/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

Section 142(1)Section 263

…a 14), xxviii. Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 921/2 Taxman 417 (SC) (para 15), 19 M/s Trancfex Studios Pvt Ltd. xxix. Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1966] 60 ITR 262 (SC) (para 15), xxx. CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167/[2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (para 16), xxxi. Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. ITO [1978] 115 ITR 799 (Cal.) (para 17), xxxii. Vijay Mallya v. Asstt. CIT [2003] 131 Taxman 477 (Cal.) (para 17), xxxiii. CIT v. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 593/225 Taxman 17 (Mag.)/46 taxmann.com 215 (Cal.) (para 17), xxxiv. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3609/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) (para 14), xxviii. Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 921/2 Taxman 417 (SC) (para 15), xxix. Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1966] 60 ITR 262 (SC) (para 15), xxx. CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167/[2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (para 16), xxxi. Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. ITO [1978] 115 ITR 799 (Cal.) (para 17), xxxii. Vijay Mallya v. Asstt. CIT [2003] 131 Taxman 477 (Cal.) (para 17), ITA No.3608 & 3609Mum/2017 9 Gautam Tube Corporation xxxiii. CIT v. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 593/225 Taxman 17 (Mag.)/46 taxmann.com 215 (Cal.) (…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3608/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) (para 14), xxviii. Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 921/2 Taxman 417 (SC) (para 15), xxix. Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1966] 60 ITR 262 (SC) (para 15), xxx. CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167/[2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (para 16), xxxi. Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. ITO [1978] 115 ITR 799 (Cal.) (para 17), xxxii. Vijay Mallya v. Asstt. CIT [2003] 131 Taxman 477 (Cal.) (para 17), ITA No.3608 & 3609Mum/2017 9 Gautam Tube Corporation xxxiii. CIT v. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 593/225 Taxman 17 (Mag.)/46 taxmann.com 215 (Cal.) (…

Ge Capital Services India, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for the A

ITA 231/DEL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…k the amount whereas deduction in respect of loss on interest swap is an actual loss which is allowable. 8.3 To support our aforesaid view, we draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Supra) wherein, it has been held that there is a difference between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry and also held that in the case of inadequate inquiry, which is the case of the Revenue in the present case, no action under section 263 of the Act can be taken unless the Commissioner records a specific and definite finding regarding the er…

Sharad Bhagwat Tembwalkar, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 27, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 530/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhmr. Sharad Bhagwant Principle Commissioner Of Tembwalkar, Flat No. 1501, Income-Tax -27 Adonis Building, Raheja Mumbai. Acropolis, Near Telecom Vs. Factory, Govanid, Mumbai -400088 Pan:Advpt6884B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Dhiren P. Talati (Ar) Revenue By : Sh. Manjunatha Swamy (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act (‘The Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax -27, Mumbai

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiren P. Talati (AR)For Respondent: Sh. Manjunatha Swamy

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54F

…llular Ltd. Vs. CIT 301 ITR 407 (Bom. High Court) 4. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC). 5. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom. High Court). 6. Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 321 ITR 92 (Bom. High Court). 7. CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 ( Del. High Court). 8. Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO (ITA No. 2690 & 2691) (Mum ITAT). 9. PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 705) (Del. High Court). 10. Amira Pure Foods (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITA No. 3205) (Del. ITAT). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of Ld. PCIT. The Ld. DR for the Revenue furthe…

Shri Abhimanyu Gupta, Patiala vs. Pr. CIT, Patiala

ITA 771/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj

Section 263

…iry was inadequate. The Pr.CIT it was submitted was bound to give his own finding which has not been done. Similar proposition of law it was submitted has been laid down by the Delhi High Court in yet another case i.e; in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167. Accordingly it was his submission that the assessment order passed is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 2.1 Inviting attention to the paper book filed on facts it was submitted that the reply of the assessee before the assessing officer dated 31/10/2014 is placed at pages 1 to 2. The submissions were supported b…

Poonam Bhotika, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 43(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 665/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Poonam Bhotika V/S. Income Tax Officer, 161/1 M.G. Road, Rom Wrd-43(1), 3, Govt. No.26, Kolkata-700 007 Place (W), [Pan No.Aqsps 2982 D] Kolkata-700 001 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri G. Hangshing, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 25-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Disputing The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-15, Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 22.03.2017 By Which The Ld. Pr. Cit Set Aside The Assessment Order Dated 02.03.2015 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2012-13 With A Direction To Re-Do The Assessment In Respect Of Issue Therein. The Ground Raised By The Assessee In The Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Tribunal Read As Under:- “1. That The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Kolkata-15 Is Not Justified Set Aside The Assessment Order For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Dated 02.03.2015 Passed By The Ito Ward-43(1), Kolkata Is Found To Be Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue On The Ground That The Allowability Of Loss In Future Option As An Admissible Business Expenditure Remained To Be Seen By The Ao During The Assessment Proceedings Although Prime Facie Evidence Against Its Allowability Was

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 43(5)(d)

…igh Court in the case of Ganbriel India Ltd. (supra) clearly supports the stand taken by the Assessee in this regard. We also derive support for our c- Inclusions as above from the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.). 16. For reasons stated above, we are of the view that the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act was not properly exercised by the CIT as the condition precedent for invoking the same viz., that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is not shown to be present in the present case. We therefore quasi. the…

Mumbai District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1(1), Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3198/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

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

…ered as argument. It was contended that inadequate enquiry by the Assessing Officer cannot result in order being revised u/s 263 for 3 The Mumbai District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. which reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd., (2011} 332 ITR 167, CIT v/s Vikas Polymers, 341 ITR 537 (Del.), CIT v/s Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 (Del.) and various other decisions mentioned in the written submissions. It was submitted that a well reasoned assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer considering the details filed by the assessee, thus, the assessment order is ne…

Adishwar K. Jain, Thane vs. Comm of Income Tax 26, Mumbai

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

ITA 3389/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena & Shri V. Justin

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 4Section 80G

…viewed as inadequate by the Commissioner, would not ipso facto justify invoking of Sec. 263 of the Act. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of New Delhi Television Ltd. (supra) by referring to its earlier decision in the case of CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) noted the distinction between purported ‘no verification’ by the Assessing Officer and ‘incomplete or inadequate verification’. The Hon'ble High Court emphasised the distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. According to it, if there was an inquiry, even inadequate, that would by itself not give an occasion for the Commi…

Puja Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur

ITA 440/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)

Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; ikWy jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 440/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 Puja Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. cuke Principle Commissioner of C/o Chir Amrit Legal LLP, 6th Vs. Income Tax (Central), Floor, Unique Destination, Opp. Rajasthan Times of India, Tonk Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACP8449D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@…

M/S. Rbs Credit & Financial Development Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 3, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1156/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1156/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Rbs Credit & Financial Development Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Pcit-3, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 3300 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Md. Usman, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A No. 1156/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s RBS Credit & Financial Development Pvt. Ltd. -vs- PCIT-3, Kolkata [PAN: AABCR 3300 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA For the Respondent : Shri Md. Usman, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 27.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 09.03.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Kolkata [in short the ld. CIT]…

M/S Panchnath Enterprise, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Pr. Commr. of Income Tax-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

Appeals are allowed

ITA 139/RJT/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri M. J. Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar, CIT. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [Conducted through E-Court at Ahmedabad] BEFORE, SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 139 to 141/Rjt/2016 (Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2008-09) M/s. Panchnath Enterprise, 22, Vijay Plot Corner, Gondal Road, Near Balashram, Rajkot Appellant Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot Respondent PAN: AACFP5192Q आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee : Shri M. J. Ranpura, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/By Revenue : Shri Jitender Kumar, CIT. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date…

Neptune Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(1)-3, Mumbai

ITA 2852/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

For Appellant: S/Shri Mayur Kishnadwala; Sunil K. RamaniFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Sanjay-CIT-DR

Section 143Section 263

…of revenue.He relied upon the cases of Span Overseas Ltd (ITA/1223/PN/2013- AY.2008-09,dated 21/12/2015),Yes Bank Ltd. (ITA 23/Mumbai/2012-AY. 2007-08,dated 05/12/ 2014),Vinay Pratap Thacker(ITA/2939/Mumbai/2011-AY.2006-07,dated 27/02/2013), Sunbeam Auto Ltd (322 ITR 167). He further stated that the AO had made detailed enquiry about both the items, that the assessee was not a producer. He referred to pages 34, 40, 41-43 of the paper book and stated that details of purchase and sales of both the films were furnish - ed and were deliberated upon by the AO. With regard to interest expenditure, he stated that detail…

Noble Medicals Bcjc Hospitals, Mumbai vs. CIT City-16, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3207/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Noble Medicals Bcjc Cit, City-16, Hospitals, S.V. Road, Santacruz, Mumbai. Mumbai-400054. Versus Pan No.Aagfn4356A Applicant Respondent

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

…e, where no enquiry as required under law is done. Reliance is made in case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom)], CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) 77 taxmann.com 15(SC)], CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) taxmann.com 78 (SC)], CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del)], CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma [(2011) 335 ITR 83 (Del)], CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. [(2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del)]. In further alternative submission it was argued that the order of assessment cannot be held erroneous only because no elaborate discussion was made by AO while passing assessment order. Reliance is made on case law of CIT vs.…