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 367,368 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.

Neetu Yadav, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office, Gurgaon

ITA 4095/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 4095/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 4229/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ita No. 845/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neetu Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, 164-P, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abfpy2785C Assessee By : Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. & Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals In Ita Nos. 4095 & 4229/Del/2024 & Ita No. 845/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2019-20, Arise Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1066728710(1) & 1067097100(1) & 1066774096(1) Dated 15.07.2024, 16.07.2024 & 29.07.2024 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…the assessee. It is not a case of 'lack of enquiry'. Merely because in his order the Ld. AO did not make elaborate assessee, the order could not be held to be erroneous. In support the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) and decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) were cited. 6.2 The Ld. AR invited our attention to Audit Memo at pages 399-402 of Paper Book in the case of the assessee wherein ITO (Audit) Hisar raised an audit objection observing that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,9…

Amit Sharma, Gurugram vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3231/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…his order the Ld. AO did not make elaborate discussion but was satisfied with the explanation of the 4 Amit Sharma assessee, the order could not be held to be erroneous. In support the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) and decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) were cited. 6.2 The Ld. AR invited our attention to Audit Memo at pages 399-402 of Paper Book in the case of the assessee wherein ITO (Audit) Hisar raised an audit objection observing that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,9…

ITO, Ward- 44(2), New Delhi vs. Threepence Craft, New Delhi

ITA 5995/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195(2)Section 263

…by the AO in the course of assessment proceedings the assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Limited (332 ITR 167). Reliance was also placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. DLF Ltd. (350 ITR 555) and CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (341 ITR 537). Reliance was also placed on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of SSG Infra Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT (ITA No.2278/Del/2024 dated 12.03.2025). 12. Ld. Counsel further subm…

Threepence Craft, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 44(2), New Delhi

ITA 5410/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195(2)Section 263Section 40

…by the AO in the course of assessment proceedings the assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Limited (332 ITR 167). Reliance was also placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. DLF Ltd. (350 ITR 555) and CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (341 ITR 537). Reliance was also placed on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of SSG Infra Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT (ITA No.2278/Del/2024 dated 12.03.2025). 12. Ld. Counsel further subm…

Threepence Craft, New Delhi vs. CIT- IX, New Delhi

ITA 2234/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195(2)Section 263

…by the AO in the course of assessment proceedings the assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Limited (332 ITR 167). Reliance was also placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. DLF Ltd. (350 ITR 555) and CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (341 ITR 537). Reliance was also placed on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of SSG Infra Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT (ITA No.2278/Del/2024 dated 12.03.2025). 12. Ld. Counsel further subm…

Azb and Partner, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

ITA 4105/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Shri VinayakFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 195Section 263

…. He submitted that inadequate enquiry cannot be equated with lack of enquiry; hence, section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked in case of inadequate enquiry. He respectfully relied on the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi HC) where it is held that whether on facts and law view taken by the AO which was one of the possible views and therefore, assessment order passed by the Ld.AO cannot be held to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He further respectfully relied on the order of co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Narayan Tatu Rane v…

Radheshyam Paper Mills Private Limited, Lilapar Road, Lilapar vs. PCIT-Rajkot-1, Income Taxdepartment, Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhavan Ring Road Race Course Rajkot

In the result, appeal OF the assessee is allowed

ITA 243/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Raiyani, Ld.A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Pallavi, Ld.CIT-D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 69Section 69B

…There is difference between ‘Lack of enquiry’ and ‘inadequate enquiry’. It is for the AO to decide the extent of enquiry to be made as it is his satisfaction as what is required under law. Reliance is placed on the decision of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [(2010) 332 ITR 167], ITA.243/Rjt/2024/AY.2019-20 Radheshyam Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that if there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner to pass order u/s 263 of the Act, merely because the Commissioner has a different opinion in the matter and that only in cases where t…

Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Private Limited, Delhi vs. PCIT (Central) Delhi-2, Jhandewalan New Delhi, Delhi

ITA 1869/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Mahesh Kumar CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…applying his mind and verifying the facts as submitted by the assessee took the correct view as, explained above. This undisputed factual position itself makes the proposed revisionary proceedings patently contrary to settled law vide CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167, wherein the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that even if there was any inquiry, which may even inadequate, that would not, by itself, empower the concerned authority u/s.263 of the Act merely because the said authority has a different opinion in the matter or the issue, as your honour vide present show cause notice seeks to effect. Th…

Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Private Limited, Delhi vs. PCIT (Central), Delhi-2 Jhandewalan, New Delhi, Delhi

ITA 1868/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Mahesh Kumar CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…applying his mind and verifying the facts as submitted by the assessee took the correct view as, explained above. This undisputed factual position itself makes the proposed revisionary proceedings patently contrary to settled law vide CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167, wherein the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that even if there was any inquiry, which may even inadequate, that would not, by itself, empower the concerned authority u/s.263 of the Act merely because the said authority has a different opinion in the matter or the issue, as your honour vide present show cause notice seeks to effect. Th…

M/S. City Union Bank, Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, both the appeals for A

ITA 1479/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr. S. Ananthan, CA and Ms. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…s of facts arrived at by the Tribunal do not warrant interference of this court. That being the position, the present case would not be one of "lack of inquiry" and, even if the inquiry was termed inadequate, following the decision in Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (page 180) : "that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter." No substantial question of law arises for our consideration.” In Ashish Rajpal as well, Hon’ble Delhi High Court was of the view that the fact that a query was rais…

M/S. City Union Bank, Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, both the appeals for A

ITA 1478/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr. S. Ananthan, CA and Ms. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…s of facts arrived at by the Tribunal do not warrant interference of this court. That being the position, the present case would not be one of "lack of inquiry" and, even if the inquiry was termed inadequate, following the decision in Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (page 180) : "that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter." No substantial question of law arises for our consideration.” In Ashish Rajpal as well, Hon’ble Delhi High Court was of the view that the fact that a query was rais…

Sai Essen Developers, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(4), Pune

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

ITA 821/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.821/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sai Essen Developers, Vs. Pcit (Central), Pune. Abc Classic G Block, Midc, Thermex Chowk, Chinchwad, Pune- 411019. Pan : Abrfs7781C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Thakkar Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is A Recalled Matter. Vide Order Dated 23.06.2025 In M.A. No.75/Pun/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Filed Against The Order Of The Tribunal In Ita No.821/Pun/2024 Dated 19.06.2024 (Appeal Filed By The Assessee) Was Recalled To Adjudicate The Issue Afresh. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") It Be Held That The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ("Pcit") Has Erred In Holding That Order Passed By The Learned

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43CSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.821/PUN/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sai Essen Developers, Vs. PCIT (Central), Pune. ABC Classic G Block, MIDC, Thermex Chowk, Chinchwad, Pune- 411019. PAN : ABRFS7781C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Thakkar Revenue by : Shri Amit Bobde Date of hearing : 31.07.2025 Date of pronouncement : 08.09.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This is a recalled matter. Vide order dated 23.06.2025 in M.A. No.75/PUN/2024 for the…

Abdulkadar Hajiahmed Vadiwala, Jamnagar vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

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

ITA 103/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.103/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Abdulkadar Hajiahmed Vadiwala The Pr.Cit बनाम Maniar Street, Lindi Bazar Jamanagar. Jamnagar-361001 Vs. Pan : Aatpv 4729 Q (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

…s and reconciliations of turnover and stock etc.Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a case of 'lack of inquiry'. We also derive support for our conclusions as above from the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.). 16. On the identical facts, Let us take the guidance of judicial precedents laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC) wherein their Lordship have held that twin conditions needs to be satisfied before exercising revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the PCIT. The twin conditions…

Bhanwarlal Champalal Kanunga, Unjha vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1040/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1040/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Bhanwarlal Champalal Kanunga, The Principal A-43, Old Gunj Bazar, बनाम/ Commissioner Of V/S. Apmc Market Yard, Income Tax, Main Line, Ahmedabad-3, Unjha-384170. Ahmedabad. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acmpk0172H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Parmanand Khatri, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Revisional Order Dated 27.03.2025 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit”] Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Whereby The Assessment Order Dated 23.09.2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Bhanwarlal Champalal Kanunga. Vs. Pcit Assessment Year 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Parmanand Khatri, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

…milarly, in case of CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the Commissioner cannot initiate proceedings with a view to substitute his judgment for that of the AO. The Delhi High Court in CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [332 ITR 167] has also laid down that “inadequate enquiry” does not confer jurisdiction under section 263; only “lack of enquiry” would do so. 19. We have also perused the Paper Book filed by the assessee which has been duly placed before us. At page 33 thereof is a Bhanwarlal Champalal Kanunga. Vs. PCIT Assessment Year 2020-21 13 copy of the notice issued…

Lal Chand, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 1(4), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4479/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4479/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Lal Chand, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Ca R.S. Poonia, Ward-1(4), D-83-B, Siwad Area, Krishna Marg, Gurugram, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur-302015 Haryana-122016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agkpl7795F Assessee By: Sh. Rajat Chaudhary, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.08.2025 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Rajat Chaudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…ely because in his order the Ld. AO did not make elaborate discussion but was satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the order could not be held to be erroneous. In support the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) and decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) were cited. 6.2 The Ld. AR invited our attention to Audit Memo at pages 399-402 of Paper Book in the case of the assessee wherein ITO (Audit) Hisar raised an audit objection observing that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,9…

Ketan Gori, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(10), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.42/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ketan Gori The Pr.Cit बनाम Plot No.3009 Jamnagar. Gidc Phase-Iii Vs. Dared. Pan : Ahppg 5892 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.42/RJT/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ketan Gori The Pr.CIT बनाम Plot No.3009 Jamnagar. GIDC Phase-III Vs. Dared. PAN : AHPPG 5892 A (अपीलाथ"/assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sagar Shah, ld.AR राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 12/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 22/08/2025 ORDER P…

Balvinder Singh, Karnal, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Karnal, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4346/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…ely because in his order the Ld. AO did not make elaborate discussion but was satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the order could not be held to be erroneous. In support the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) and 4 | P a g e decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) were cited. 6.2 The Ld. AR invited our attention to Audit Memo at pages 399-402 of Paper Book in the case of the assessee wherein ITO (Audit) Hisar raised an audit objection observing that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Ac…

Leelu Ram, Gurugram vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurugam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 896/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Leelu Ram, S/O-Mangal Singh, C/O-Ysr Gurugram & Associates, Plot No. 214, Basement, Sector-47, Haryana Pan: Apspr3189Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. M.R. Sahu, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…ely because in his order the Ld. AO did not make elaborate discussion but was satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the order could not be held to be erroneous. In support the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) and decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) were cited. 6.2 The Ld. AR invited our attention to Audit Memo at pages 399-402 of Paper Book in the case of the assessee wherein ITO (Audit) Hisar raised an audit objection observing that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,9…

M/S Gvk Jaipur Expressway Private Limited, Telangana vs. PCIT 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 248/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

…ombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabrial India Ltd., reported in 203 ITR 108, has held that, “CIT cannot revise order merely because he disagrees with the conclusion arrived at by the ITO”. Further, in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., reported in 227 CTR 133, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court drew a distinction between “Lack of inquiry” and “inadequate enquiry" and held that, ‘in the case of inadequate enquiry, provisions under section 263 cannot be invoked.' Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Moil Ltd. Vs. CIT [81 Taxmann.com 420] observed that if a query is raised during the assessment proceedings which was r…

India Japan Lighting Private Limited, Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 4, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1427/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1427/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 V. M/S. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit-4, No.1, Tiruvallur High Road, Chennai. Puduchatram B.O., Thirumazhisai, Tiruvallur-600 124. [Pan: Aaaci 2673 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

…s of facts arrived at by the Tribunal do not warrant interference of this court. That being the position, the present case would not be one of "lack of inquiry" and, even if the inquiry was termed inadequate, following the decision in Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (page 180) : "that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter." No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. 24. In Ashish Rajpal as well, this Court was of the view that the fact that a query was raised during…