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)

Komal Adlakha, Gurugram vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3652/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2019-20 Vs. Ito, Komal Adlakha, A06, Parsvnath Green Ville, Ward-2(2), Sohna Road, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan: Autpa5180C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, 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 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…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…

Guru Kripa Associates, Bareilly vs. Pr. CIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 97/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 263

…y and perceived inadequacy in enquiry. Inadequacy in conduct of enquiry cannot be the reason based on which powers under s.263 can be invoked to interdict an assessment order.—CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2009) 227 CTR (Del) 133 : (2009) 31 DTR (Del) 1 : (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) followed." C. In case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GREEN LAND MOTORS reported in (2018)2NYPCTR639(All) HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD reported in has held that “It is clear that suo moto power under s.263 of the Act can be exercised by the Commr. if two conditions; firstly the assessment order passed is erroneous; and secondly the order is…

Bhandari Associates, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 2, Pune

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

ITA 1227/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada S IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…”. If there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Ld. PCIT to pass order u/s 263 of the Act. For the above proposition, he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi). 16. So far as the allegation of the Ld. PCIT that no evidence exists on record to prove the creditworthiness of the persons / entities and the ITRs of none of the lenders brought on record is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to pages 687 to 704 of the paper book-II submitted that the assessee has submitted 10 all t…

Procter and Gamble Health Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2326/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji & Shri Ajay BhandariFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 40Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)Section 68

…in the assessment order or the said authority is circumscribed to only consider the cases where no enquiry has been conducted at all. 22. Reliance can be placed on the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2010] 189 Тахтаn 436/[2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)/[2009] SCC OnLine Del 4237, wherein, it was held that if the AO has not provided detailed reasons with respect to each and every item of deduction etc. in the assessment order, that by itself would not reflect a non-application of mind by the AO. It was further held that merely inadequacy of enquiry would not confer the power of revision…

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 958/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरर, न्यागिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 951 to 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, PCIT (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [PAN: AERPM-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2…

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 957/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरर, न्यागिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 951 to 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, PCIT (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [PAN: AERPM-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2…

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 956/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरर, न्यागिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 951 to 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, PCIT (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [PAN: AERPM-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2…

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT (Central), Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 953/CHNY/2025[953]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरर, न्यागिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 951 to 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, PCIT (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [PAN: AERPM-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2…

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT (Central), Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 952/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरर, न्यागिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 951 to 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, PCIT (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [PAN: AERPM-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2…

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT (Central), Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 951/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरर, न्यागिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 951 to 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, PCIT (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [PAN: AERPM-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2…

Cupid Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pricipal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 478/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Shubhash Shetty & Shri Vinayaka RaoFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, (CIT-DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 69C

…T by invoking revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act cannot impose his own understanding of the extent of inquiry. There are plethora of judgments by various High Courts in this regard. The hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto 332 ITR 167 (Del.), made a distinction between 'lack of inquiry' and 'inadequate inquiry'. The hon'ble court held that where the AO has made inquiry prior to the completion of assessment, Page 12 ITA No. 478/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2021-22 Cupid Diamonds Private Limited the same cannot be set aside u/s 263 of the Act on the ground of inadequate inquiry. It was observe…

Kaushal Anil Shah, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1952/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Reepal G. Trashawala,ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,(CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 69C

…T by invoking revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act cannot impose his own understanding of the extent of inquiry. There are plethora of judgments by various High Courts in this regard. The hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto 332 ITR 167 (Del.), made a distinction between 'lack of inquiry' and 'inadequate inquiry'. The hon'ble court held that where the AO has made inquiry prior to the completion of assessment, the same cannot be set aside u/s 263 of the Act on the ground of inadequate inquiry. It was observed that one has to keep in mind the distinction between "lack of inquiry"…

Ravinder, Gurgaon vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4865/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19

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,…

Bajaj Holdings Amd Investment Limited, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai - 3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3678/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Vasantiben Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R.Singh, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

…PCIT ITA 1302/Mum/2021 5. Dalai & Broacha Stock Broking (P) Ltd 175 Taxmann.com 984 vs. PCIT 6. DCIT v. Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd 1 75 Taxmann.com 411 7. DCIT v. Gabriel Ltd 173 Taxmann.com 21 9 8. MOIL V CIT 396 ITR 244 (Bombay) 9. CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) 10. CIT v. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bombay) 11. CIT v. Nirav Modi 77 Taxmann.com 15 (SC) 12. Axis Securities Ltd v. PCIT 175 Taxmann.com 982 13. Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC Ltd v ACIT ITA 494/Mum/2025 14. Blue Dart Express Ltd. 1101/Mum/2024 4.1 We refer to the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of ACIT vs. Blue Dart E…

Radhey Shyam Saini, Hisar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2359/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Pcit, Sh. Radhey Shyam Saini, H. No. 1174/334, Rohtak Ramlila Chowk, Hisar, Haryana Pan: Bxhps4356Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Kuldeep Khera, Ca Sh. Mohit Girdhar, Ca Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15, Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [In Short, The “Pcit”], Rohtak’S Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023- 24/1062878555(1), Dated 18.03.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 3. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S Pleadings & Revenue’S Foregoing Vehement Contention. It Emerges That This Tribunal’S Recent Decision In Pawan Kumar Vs. Pcit (2024) 159 Taxmann.Com 61 (Del.-Trib.) Has Distinguished The Said Case Law As Under:

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…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 4 | P a g e Acquisition Ac…

Shammi Nagpal HUF, Hisar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2358/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Pcit, Shammi Nagpal Huf, H. No. 7, Sector-13, Hissar, Rohtak Haryana Pan: Aazhs3505D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Kuldeep Khera, Ca Sh. Mohit Girdhar, Ca Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14, Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short “The Pcit”), Rohtak’S Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023- 24/1062887031(1), Dated 19.03.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 3. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S Pleadings & Revenue’S Foregoing Vehement Contention. It Emerges That This Tribunal’S Recent Decision In Pawan Kumar Vs. Pcit (2024) 159 Taxmann.Com 61 (Del.-Trib.) Has Distinguished The Said Case Law As Under:

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…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 4 | P a g e Acquisition Ac…

Pratap Singh Rathi, Ghaziabad vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Kanpur

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 502/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Sh. Pratap Singh Rathi, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of C-143, Surya Nagar, Income Tax , Ghaziabad Knp At Meerut Pin 201 001 Pan No. Ahkpr0582M (Appellant)M (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Shrey Jain &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

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

…e following judicial decisions: 7 i) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (2000) 243 ITR 83(SC). ii) Housing Projects Ltd, 74 DTR 153, High Court of Delhi. iii) DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388, High Court of Delhi. iv) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., (2011) 332 ITR 167, High Court of Delhi. 5.5 Further, reliance is also placed on the following decisions given by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals wherein the claim u/s 10(38) involving the same scrip i.e., CCL International Ltd. was allowed by holding the scrip as a genuine scrip and not a penny stock. a) Reeshu Goyal vs. ITO, ITA No. 1691/Del/2019 dated 07…

Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Khanji Bhavan vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan(Vejalpur), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 651/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80GSection 80I

…ra), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court extensively analysed the contours of revisionary powers exercisable by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court held after surveying several precedents including CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del)] and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)], authoritatively noted that – "... one has to keep in mind the distinction between ‘lack of inquiry’ and ‘inadequate inquiry’. If there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, me…

Soham Papers Private Limited, Morbi vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

ITA 371/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

…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], 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 there is no enquiry, the power u/s 263 of the Act can be exerci…

Shamji Nathu Vaishya, Veraval vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

ITA 327/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

…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], 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 there is no enquiry, the power u/s 263 of the Act can be exerci…

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.

Komal Adlakha, Gurugram vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Gurugram

Guru Kripa Associates, Bareilly vs. Pr. CIT, Bareilly

Bhandari Associates, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 2, Pune

Procter and Gamble Health Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT (Central), Chennai

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT (Central), Chennai

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT (Central), Chennai

Cupid Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pricipal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Mumbai

Kaushal Anil Shah, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-20, Mumbai

Ravinder, Gurgaon vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

Bajaj Holdings Amd Investment Limited, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai - 3, Mumbai

Radhey Shyam Saini, Hisar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

Shammi Nagpal HUF, Hisar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

Pratap Singh Rathi, Ghaziabad vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Kanpur

Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Khanji Bhavan vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan(Vejalpur), Ahmedabad

Soham Papers Private Limited, Morbi vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

Shamji Nathu Vaishya, Veraval vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot