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.

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 717/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)

Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

…Vodafone Essar South Limited (212 Taxman 184) (as affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CC 9308/2013) (Page no. 1-8 of PB). - CIT vs. Vodafone Essar South Limited (CC 9308/2013) – Hon’ble Supreme Court (page no. 9 of PB). - CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (322 ITR 167) – Delhi High Court (Page no. 10-21a of the PB). 8.1 As regards applicability of section 194J of the I.T. Act on roaming charges paid to roaming partners, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has relied upon the following case law, the copies thereof are attached with the Paper Book. He further submitted that in these cases the Tribunal held that a…

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 716/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)

Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

Sh. Vodafone Digilink Ltd., Karnal vs. CIT (TDS), Chandigarh

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 3781/DEL/2013[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017

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

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)

Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

Sh. Vodafone Digilink Ltd., Karnal vs. CIT (TDS), Chandigarh

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 3780/DEL/2013[2008-09 (F.Y. 2007- 08)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017

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

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)

Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

Sh. Vodafone Digilink Ltd., Karnal vs. CIT (TDS), Chandigarh

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 3779/DEL/2013[2007-08 (F.Y. 2006-07)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017

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

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)

Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

Ramnath Jhunjhunwala, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 40(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1019/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 263Section 40Section 44A

…enquiry was conducted by AO during assessment has no leg to stand. Thus, we hold that the AO has made the assessment after applying his mind. In holding so, we find guidance and support from the judgment of Delhi High Court in CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167 /[2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi), where it was held that if there is some enquiry by the AO in the original proceedings even if inadequate that cannot clothe the Commissioner with jurisdiction under Section 263 merely because he can form another opinion. It was emphasized here that the notice and questionnaire given to the assessee which were duly…

M/S. Aspinwall & Co. Ltd, Cochin vs. The DCIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 277/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.Assessment Year:2011- 12

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 263

…g Officer has made any inquiry in respect of claim of the disallowance of expenditure under section 14A and the applicability of Rule 8D. The learned A.R. also relied on the following decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court; (i) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Del) and (ii) CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma [2011] 335 ITR 83 (Del) for the proposition of law that if there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give an occasion to the CIT to pass the order under section 263 of the Act merely because he has a different opinion in the matter. On a question from the Bench, whether any specific…

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-Cir-8, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3494/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Procter & Gamble Cit-8, Hygiene & Health Care, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ P & G Plaza, Cardinal M.K. Road, Vs. Gracias Road, Chakala, Mumbai-400020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp6332M

Section 263Section 80I

…. 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), 10 M/s Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care 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 1…

Nilkant Tech Park P Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3511/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Nilkanth Tech Park Pvt. Ltd. C.I.T.-8, Citimall, New Link Road, Mumbai. Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 Pan: Aaccn0341G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263Section 45Section 45(2)Section 73

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Nilkanth Tech Park Pvt. Ltd. C.I.T.-8, Citimall, New Link Road, Mumbai. Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 PAN: AACCN0341G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Prakash Jotwani - : Advocate Revenue by : Shri N.P. Singh (CIT-DR) Date of hearing : 20.04.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 19.05.2017 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee under section 253 of the Income-tax Act (the Act) is directed against the…

Shivangi International, Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3396/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishishivangi International, Vs. Cit, Meerut Cold Storage Building, Aayakar Bhawan, Delhi Road, Meerut Bhaisali Ground, Meerut Pan: Aadfs3912Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. CS Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40Section 68

…he can revise the order of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it is necessary to examine whether the order of the LD Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue or not. the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd 189 Taxmann 436 has held that where the income tax officer examines the accounts, makes enquiries and applies his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and then frames an assessment order then in view of the quasi judicial power vested into him, it cannot be said to have been exercised in an erroneous manner which has caused prejudice to the revenu…

Technip Uk Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4284/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2008-09] Technip Uk Limited Vs. The D.I.T. C/O Bmr & Associates Llp International - Ii 22Nd Floor, Building No. 5 New Delhi Tower ‘A’, Dlf Cyber City, Dlf Phase Iii, Gurgaon Haryana Pan : Aacct 8268 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Arora, Sr- DR

Section 263Section 4Section 44BSection 44D

…terms of section 44BB of the Act being in accordance with the provisions of the Act and decided judicial precedents cannot be said to be erroneous much less prejudicial to the interest of Revenue in view of the following decisions: CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd: 332 ITR 167 (Del) • CIT v. International Travel House: 344 ITR 554 (Del) • CIT vs. Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del) Gulmohar Finances Limited: 170 Taxman 483 (Del.) • 26 Fab India Overseas vs. CIT: 244 CTR 380 (Del.) • CIT vs. Vodafone Essar: 212 Taxman 184 (Del.) • CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co: 171 ITR 141 (MP) • CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishonoi: 152 Taxman 242 (…

Future Ideas Co Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT -9, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 3062/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainfuture Ideas Co. Ltd. Principal Cit – 9 Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar 2Nd Floor, Room No. 214 Vs. Off Jogeshwari Vikroli Link Rd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai 400060 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacf9519L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…llowance was called for under rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules, the learned CIT could not assume jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act merely because he had a different opinion in the matter; reliance was, inter alia, placed on: - (i) Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) (ii) CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83 (Del) (iii) CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del) 4.26 It was further argued that without prejudice to the main objections, the provisions of section 14A and section 36(i)(iii) of the Act are mutually exclusive. In as much as, to the extent interest expenditure is found to…

Future Corporate Resources Ltd.(Formerly Known As Simpleton Investrade Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT -9, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 3061/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainfuture Corporate Resources Ltd. Principal Cit – 9 (Formerly Simpleton Investrade P. Ltd.) 2Nd Floor, Room No. 214 Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Off Jogeshwari Vikroli Link Rd. Mumbai 400020 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai 400060 Pan – Aajcs3979E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja

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

…llowance was called for under rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules, the learned CIT could not assume jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act merely because he had a different opinion in the matter. Reliance was, inter alia, placed on: - (i) Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) (ii) CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83 (Del) (iii) CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del) 4.26 It was further argued that without prejudice to the main objections, the provisions of section 14A and section 36(i)(iii) of the Act are mutually exclusive. In as much as, to the extent interest expenditure is found to…

M/S Mewat Grit Udyog, New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1802/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, advocate&For Respondent: Smt.Sulekha Verma, CIT/DR

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 263Section 40

…d reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC) and the decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (del), Ld. CIT(A) vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 (del), ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Limited 343 ITR 329 (Del), Ld. CIT(A) vs. Leisurewear Exports Ltd 341 ITR 166 (Del) etc. Basing on CIT vs. DLF Ltd 350 ITR 555 (Del), PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd 398 ITR 8 (Del) etc he submitted that where there is inadequate enquiry, but not lack of enquiry, the CIT must record finding that ord…

Small Wonder Industries, Mumbai vs. CIT 24, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2464/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Small Wonder Industries, Cit-24, 78, Virwani Indl. Estate, Mumbai बनाम/ Western Express Highway, Vs. Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400063 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aalfs6318Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Prakash Jotwani Shri Debasis Chandra Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2017 24/02/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…The Tribunal was right and the order of revision was not valid.” 2.5. The aforesaid order clearly fits into the facts before us. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion the Hon'ble High Court duly considered the decision in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del.) (para-6 & 7). We are expected to ascertain whether the Assessing Officer had investigated/examined the issue and applied his mind towards the whole record made available by the assessee during assessment proceedings. Uncontrovertedly, necessary details/reply to the questionnaire were filed/produced by the assessee and the same were examine…

M/S Hero Honda Motors Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2148/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh C.M.Garg & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Honda Motors Ltd, Dcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, Circle-12(1), Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacg0812J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. AK Saroha, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 9

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SH C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hero Honda Motors Ltd, DCIT, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, Circle-12(1), Vs. New Delhi New Delhi PAN:AAACG0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv Ms. Bhavita Kumar, Adv Revenue by: Sh. AK Saroha, CIT DR Date of Hearing 03/11/2016 Date of pronouncement 02/02/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of LD CIT, New Delhi passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 d…

Shree D.K. Associates, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 32, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5659/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 263

…e decision of CIT vs. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. 212 Taxmann 184 (Del.) on which the ld . AR vehemently relied. In this decision, we noted that the Hon’ble High Court relied on the earlier decision of the High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 in which it was held that if there is some inquiry by the AO in the original proceedings, even if inadequate, that cannot clothe the Commissioner with jurisdiction u/s 263 merely because he can form another opinion. At the most the case of the assessee can be regarded to I.T.A. No.5659/Mum/2016 24 Assessment year:2011-12 be the lack of inquiry…

Sh. Jatinder Singh, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2184/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT/DR

Section 143(3)Section 194C(6)Section 263

…lenged the impugned order u/s. 263 of the Act, being legally invalid. In support, he has relied on the following decisions : (i). CIT vs. Gabreil India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (ii). CIT vs. Arvind Jeweller, 259 ITR 502 (Guj) (iii). CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167(Del.) (iv). CIT vs. Mc Dermott International Inc., 302 ITR 268 (Uttarakhand) (v). CIT vs. DLF Ltd. 350 ITR 555 (Del.) 9. It was submitted that only because the Revising authority disagrees with the conclusions reached by primary authority in the assessment order, this will not constitute that the order of the primary authority was erroneous i…

M/S. Paswara Impex Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2243/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishipaswara Impex Ltd, Acit, Paswara House, Baghpat Road, Meerut, Circle-2, Vs. Pan:Aadcp0113F Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Saniv Sabra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. RL Meena, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Paswara Impex Ltd, ACIT, Paswara House, Baghpat Road, Meerut, Circle-2, Vs. PAN:AADCP0113F Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Saniv Sabra, CA Revenue by: Sh. RL Meena, CIT DR Date of Hearing 06/10/2016 Date of pronouncement 04/01/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT (A), Meerut dated 21.03.2013 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The assessee has raised the following gr…

Shri Satish Jain, Indore vs. The CIT-2, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 342/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 263

…Shri Satish Jain, Indore / I.T.A. No.342/Ind/2015/A.Y: /10-11 Page 1 of 14 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE "ी डी.ट".गरा"सया, "या"यक सद"य तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 342 /Ind/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2010-11 Shri Satish Jain, Pr. CIT-2 Indore Pp. Satish Agro Industries , Vs. 1/1 Shrinath Chambers, Maharani Road Indore अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./PAN:ABVPJ0983D Shri Pankaj Shah & Shri G. J. Shah अपीलाथ" क" ओर…