Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 179 (1.82 seconds)
Documents citing Cit vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. on 30 May, 2012

Pvs Multiplex (India) Ltd., Meerut vs Assessee on 14 August, 2015

14 When we analyise the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the light of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in the judgment of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (Supra) we note that the present case is not a case of 'lack of inquiry' or inadequate inquiry but present case is the case wherein the Assessing Officer has not made required inquiry on the issue of interest free advances for non business purposes and consequently proportionate disallowance of interest thereon, on the issue of verification of TDS and on the issue of claim of deduction of the assessee u/s 80IA(7A) of the Act specially on the issue of exclusion on income of sale of shop and FDR interest from finding income for the purpose of computation of claim of deduction under the said provision.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Aarti International Ltd., Ludhiana vs Assessee on 26 November, 2012

In view thereof where the Assessing Officer has decided the issue after making enquiries and applying his mind and also in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ITO Vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (supra) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.(supra), we find no merit in invoking of jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Act in relation to the exemption claimed under section 10B of the Act and the same is satisfied.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Adani Enterprises Ltd., Ahmedabad vs Assessee on 30 January, 2015

In this regard, we find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) held that the provisions of section 263 should not be invoked for inadequate enquiries but it may be invoked in the case of absence of enquiry. It is not case of CIT that enquiry has not been conducted but only allegation is that the Assessing Officer did not conduct necessary enquiry. Necessary enquiry, adequate enquiry or insufficient enquiry is subjective outlook. It varies person to person. So, CIT cannot thrust his subjective outlook upon the Assessing Officer who in fact has made certain enquiries with regard to issue at hand at the relevant point of time. In view of above legal and factual discussion, the order of CIT u/s.263 is not justified and the same is quashed."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Sarasa Prahalad, Bangalore vs Cit, Bangalore on 20 April, 2018

Drawing support from the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industries Co. Ltd (supra), of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (supra) and of 18 ITA No.463/Bang/2014 the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Infosys Ltd. (supra); we are of the considered view, the ld. CIT had correctly considered all these aspects before taking revisionary action under Section 263 of the Act in the case on hand for Assessment Year 2008-09 in directing the Assessing Officer to examine the aforesaid two issues in question in accordance with law. Consequently, since we do not find any merit in the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal, it is dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ideal Carpet Industries, New Delhi vs Assessee on 19 December, 2014

11. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that where the assessee had made an enquiry before completion of assessment, the same could not be set aside for the reasons of inadequate enquiry. Ld. CIT has set aside the assessment of the assessee only for the reason that AO has not verified all the facts and evidences submitted by the assessee as well as material on record. In our considered view the finding given by the ld. CIT in the impugned order is not as per law and is contrary to the records of the assessee's case and is not sustainable in the eye of law because as discussed above, the AO had made an enquiry before completion of assessment by calling the explanation along with documentary evidence on the issue in disputes from the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order is deserved to be ITA No. 2957/D/2014 M/s Ideal Carpets 7 cancelled in view of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Del.). The order of the AO cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law if an Income Tax Officer acting in according with law make a certain assessment the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because according to him, the order should have been written more elaborately. This section does not visualize a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income Tax Officer who passed the order unless the decision is held to be erroneous. We find that AO had called for explanation on these very items from the assessee and the assessee has furnished its explanation vide letter dated 29/04/2011 which clearly shows that the AO had undertaken the exercise of examining on the issue in dispute. It appears that since the AO was satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee, he accepted the same before completion of assessment.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sanjay Kumar Keshary, Gurgaon vs Assessee on 14 October, 2015

ITA No.1491/Del./2011 4.70 lakhs from the cash flow statement and after satisfying thereon, has admitted the explanation of the assessee. In our considered opinion, this may be a case of inadequate inquiry, but certainly, it is not a case of lack of enquiry. The learned Assessing Officer has made certain opinion on the basis of enquiry conducted and satisfied himself. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax cannot revise the assessment merely due to the reason that he holds a different opinion on that issue. Respectfully, following the judgement of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (supra), we hold that the findings of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in holding the order of the learned Assessing Officer passed under section 143(3) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of the Revenue are not correct and bad in law and therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) passed under section 263 of the Act .
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next