CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.

203 ITR 108High Court1993#43 most cited

What is CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. authority for?

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order under Section 263 merely because they hold a different opinion or believe a deeper inquiry was warranted if the Assessing Officer has applied their mind and conducted some inquiry. Revision under Section 263 is permissible only in cases of a complete lack of inquiry or non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, not for merely inadequate inquiry.

990

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. · 203 ITR 108 · Section 263 · revision under Section 263 · inadequate inquiry · lack of inquiry · non-application of mind · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · Commissioner's power of revision

Also reported as

71 Taxmann 585

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 143(2)Section 148Section 1961

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquirymalabar industrialsection 263(1)lack of enquiryprejudicial to interest of revenuerevision u/s 263revision under section 263assessment order erroneouserroneous and prejudicialsection 263section 26non-application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) - 4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 212/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

…ues are duly verified and test checked by the assessing officer and assessment were completed therefore there is no need of proceedings U/s. 263 in the case of the assessee. In this regard the assessee has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Mum. HC) 1. Commissioner of Income Tax –Vs.-Gabrial India Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 0502 (Guj. HC) 2. Commissioner of Income Tax –Vs.- Arvind Jewellers (2004) 268 ITR 0128 (P&H HC) 3. Commissioner of Income Tax –Vs.- Max India Ltd. ITA 186, 211 & 212/Nag/2025 (A.Y. 2015–16) Shree Sant Bhojaji Maharaj Deosthan Ajansara (2007) 289 ITR 0226 (Gau. HC)…

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) -4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 211/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

…ues are duly verified and test checked by the assessing officer and assessment were completed therefore there is no need of proceedings U/s. 263 in the case of the assessee. In this regard the assessee has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Mum. HC) 1. Commissioner of Income Tax –Vs.-Gabrial India Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 0502 (Guj. HC) 2. Commissioner of Income Tax –Vs.- Arvind Jewellers (2004) 268 ITR 0128 (P&H HC) 3. Commissioner of Income Tax –Vs.- Max India Ltd. ITA 186, 211 & 212/Nag/2025 (A.Y. 2015–16) Shree Sant Bhojaji Maharaj Deosthan Ajansara (2007) 289 ITR 0226 (Gau. HC)…

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE AT NGP, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 186/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

…ues are duly verified and test checked by the assessing officer and assessment were completed therefore there is no need of proceedings U/s. 263 in the case of the assessee. In this regard the assessee has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Mum. HC) 1. Commissioner of Income Tax –Vs.-Gabrial India Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 0502 (Guj. HC) 2. Commissioner of Income Tax –Vs.- Arvind Jewellers (2004) 268 ITR 0128 (P&H HC) 3. Commissioner of Income Tax –Vs.- Max India Ltd. ITA 186, 211 & 212/Nag/2025 (A.Y. 2015–16) Shree Sant Bhojaji Maharaj Deosthan Ajansara (2007) 289 ITR 0226 (Gau. HC)…

DAVINDER KUMAR MAGO,PUNJABI BAGH vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DDN, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 17/DDN/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Davinder Kumar Mago Vs Dcit/Acit 12/1, Punjabi Bagh, Central Circle, External Punjabi Bagh, Dehradun New Delhi-110026 Uttarakhand Pan-Ajhpm9802A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. (Vc) Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order By Pr.Cit (Central), Kanpur At Meerut Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1861 (“The Act”) Dated 08.01.2026 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2019-20] Davinder Kumar Mago vs DCIT/ACIT 12/1, Punjabi Bagh, Central Circle, External Punjabi Bagh, Dehradun New Delhi-110026 Uttarakhand PAN-AJHPM9802A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. (VC) Respondent by Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT DR Date of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee against the order by Pr.CIT (Central), Kanpur at Meerut passed u/s 2…

M/S SOVA,PANAJI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 24/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2018-19 M/S Sova Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan: Aacfs8862Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: Mr Sukhsagar Syal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 263Section 56

…he Ld. NFeAC before disallowing them in the absence of business operations. The action of Ld. PCIT therefore also find support by negative application of decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd’ [1993, 203 ITR 108 (Bom)], wherein their hon’ble lordships at para 14 have held as under; ‘We, therefore hold that in order to exercise power under sub-section (1) of section 263 of the Act there must be material before the Commissioner to consider that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the R…

PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 625/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.625/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Progressive Constructions The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Circle-5(1) Vs. Pin – 500 001. Telangana. Hyderabad - 500 004. Pan Aabcp2274M Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : & Sri Santi Pavan Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Lv Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: And Sri Santi Pavan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 36(1)(vii)

…re is no error in the order of the Assessing Officer on this point. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has relied upon the following Judgments: CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto Ltd., [2011] 332 ITR 167 (i) (Del.HC); CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., [1993] 203 ITR 108 (ii) (Bom.HC); CIT vs. Vikas Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537 (iii) (Del.HC); M/s. Sarvana Developers, Bangalore vs. CIT-1, (iv) Bangalore Order of ITAT Bangalore in ITA.No.620/ Bang./2011 and ITA.No.48/Bang./2013 dated 06.09.2013; Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR (v) 83 (SC); CIT & Another vs. DG Gopala Gowda [2013] 354 (vi) ITR 50…

FATTESING PUNAJI DHABRE,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX – 2, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 368/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Fattesing Punaji Dhabre Pcit – 2, Nagpur Plot No. 132, Chandan Nagar, Post Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001. Maharashtra – 440009. [Pan: Bacpd6505Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Madhav Vichare, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54B

…under section 263 are not inconsonance with the issues in show casue notice under section 263. To support his various view on merit, the ld. AR relied upon the following decision:  CIT vs Sunbeam Auto [(332 ITR 167 (Del)]  CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay)] 8 Fattesing Punaji Dhabre  PCIT vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited [ITA 705/2017] [(2017) 398 ITR 8 (Del)]  Amira Pure Foods vs The PCIT [ITA 3205/Del/2017]  Narayan Tatu Rane vs ITO [ITA 2690/2691/Mum/2016 dated 06.05.2016]  Arun Kumar Garg HUF vs PCIT [ITA 3391/Del/2018 dated 08.01.2019]  PI Industries Limited vs LEA…

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT V. Ratlam Coal Asn. & Co. iv) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v Vikas Polymers (pages 277-285 of JPB) “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary that an "erroneous judgment" means "one rendered according to course and practice of Court, but contrary to law, upon mistaken view of law; or upon erroneous application of legal principles" and thus it is clear that an order cannot be terms as "erroneous" unless it is not in accordance wit…

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT V. Ratlam Coal Asn. & Co. iv) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v Vikas Polymers (pages 277-285 of JPB) “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary that an "erroneous judgment" means "one rendered according to course and practice of Court, but contrary to law, upon mistaken view of law; or upon erroneous application of legal principles" and thus it is clear that an order cannot be terms as "erroneous" unless it is not in accordance wit…

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT V. Ratlam Coal Asn. & Co. iv) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v Vikas Polymers (pages 277-285 of JPB) “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary that an "erroneous judgment" means "one rendered according to course and practice of Court, but contrary to law, upon mistaken view of law; or upon erroneous application of legal principles" and thus it is clear that an order cannot be terms as "erroneous" unless it is not in accordance wit…

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT V. Ratlam Coal Asn. & Co. iv) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v Vikas Polymers (pages 277-285 of JPB) “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary that an "erroneous judgment" means "one rendered according to course and practice of Court, but contrary to law, upon mistaken view of law; or upon erroneous application of legal principles" and thus it is clear that an order cannot be terms as "erroneous" unless it is not in accordance wit…

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT V. Ratlam Coal Asn. & Co. iv) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v Vikas Polymers (pages 277-285 of JPB) “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary that an "erroneous judgment" means "one rendered according to course and practice of Court, but contrary to law, upon mistaken view of law; or upon erroneous application of legal principles" and thus it is clear that an order cannot be terms as "erroneous" unless it is not in accordance wit…

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT V. Ratlam Coal Asn. & Co. iv) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v Vikas Polymers (pages 277-285 of JPB) “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary that an "erroneous judgment" means "one rendered according to course and practice of Court, but contrary to law, upon mistaken view of law; or upon erroneous application of legal principles" and thus it is clear that an order cannot be terms as "erroneous" unless it is not in accordance wit…

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT V. Ratlam Coal Asn. & Co. iv) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v Vikas Polymers (pages 277-285 of JPB) “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary that an "erroneous judgment" means "one rendered according to course and practice of Court, but contrary to law, upon mistaken view of law; or upon erroneous application of legal principles" and thus it is clear that an order cannot be terms as "erroneous" unless it is not in accordance wit…

MUKUL ROHATGI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2427/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri Sachit Jolly, Senior Advocate
Section 112ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 24Section 263

…e PCIT acting in a reasonable manner could have come to such a conclusion, the very initiation of proceedings by him will be illegal and without justification. In similar circumstances, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (199) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) held the similar views. We are of the view, though, it is not expected of the PCIT to record his final conclusion in the order passed in revision proceedings under Section 263 of the Act, but, he must, at least indicate in his order how the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The revis…

STUDDS ACCESSORIES LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3570/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalkra, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Avikal Manu, CIT DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80J

…022] ITA No. 1472/Ahd/2015 & h) It is also settled law that section 263 proceedings cannot be initiated with a view to start fishing and roving inquiries [refer Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. vs ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC), CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd.: [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), Spectra Shares & Scrips (P.) Ltd. vs CIT: [2013] 354 ITR 35 (Andhra Pradesh), Narayan Tatu Rane vs ITO (supra)]. c) Moreover, it is pertinent to note that in the impugned order passed under section 263 of the Act, the PCIT has not rendered any specific or speaking finding on the allegation of addition in relation to deduction under sec…

JAIN ENTERPRISES, BHILAI,DURG vs. PCIT, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

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

ITA 187/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 187/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jain Enterprises, Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 87-B, Light Industrial Area, Raipur-1, Central Revenue Building, Bhilai-490026, C.G. Civil Lines, Raipur, 492001, C.G. Pan: Aagfj3469G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri S. R. Rao, Advocate राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 11/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2018-19 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.03.2025 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (‘Pcit’) Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…fined to loss of tax. The High Court of Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain [(1957) 31 ITR 872 (Cal)] , the High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. T. Narayana Pai [(1975) 98 ITR 422 (Kant)] , the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom)] and the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Minalben S. Parikh [(1995) 215 ITR 81 (Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr Abraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [(1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad)] interpreting “prejudicial to the intere…

AMBUJA CEMENTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

ITA 3474/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Sourabh Soparkar, AR (virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…onfined to loss of tax. The High Court of Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain [(1957) 31 ITR 872 (Cal)], the High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. T. Narayana Pai [(1975) 98 ITR 422 (Kant)], the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom)] and the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Minalben S. Parikh [(1995) 215 ITR 81 (Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr Abraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [(1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad)] interpreting “prejudicial to the interes…

MR. ANMOL GOVINDRAM SEKHRI,BANDRA ARCADE, NANDI GULLY, OPP BANDRA RAILWAY ST vs. CIRCLE 16(2), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarmrs. Suneeta Sekhri V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of (Legal Heir Of Mr. Anmol बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 16(2), Govindram Sekhri), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – Ground Floor, Bandra Arcade, 400020, Maharashtra Nandi Gully, Opp. Bandra Railway Station, Bandra(West), Mumbai – 400 050, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Alhps9957L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ajgaonkar & Ms. Rupal Shrimal, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (CIT-DR)
Section 144BSection 147Section 263Section 68

…law". Thus, in our considered view following Apex Court ruling the Revision order passed by ld. PCIT is not sustainable in law. 5.2 Reference could also be made to the decision of the hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) (Bom) with regard to assumption of jurisdiction by the PCIT in the para below: "12. From the aforesaid definitions it is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commi…

SRI RAMASEVA BAHUSARA KSHARIYA CO-OP. SOCIETY LIMITED,SHIMOGA vs. PR. CIT, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 861/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Ramaseva Bahusara Kshariya Co-Op. Society Ltd. 01, Ramanna Setty Park Spm Road, Doddapete So Vs. Principal Cit Shimoga 577 202 Bengaluru-1 Karnataka Pan No :Aaajs0083P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Kiran D., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Kiran D., D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…i Ramaseva BahusaraKshariya Co-Op. Society Ltd., Shimoga Page 20 of 28 been written 'more elaborately'. Recourse cannot be taken to section 263 to substitute the view of the Assessing Officer with that of the Commissioner. [See CITv. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom.)]. (viii) The exercise of statutory power under section 263 of the Act is dependent on existence of objective facts ascertained from prima faciematerial on record. The evaluation of such material should show that tax which was lawfully exigible was not imposed. [See Gabriel India Ltd.'s case (supra)]. 7.11 Now, in the light of the above pri…

Showing 1–20 of 990 · Page 1 of 50

...