CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.

Ganadhipati Construction Private Ltd, Patna vs. PCIT, Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

…e as erroneous being prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We draw support from the following judicial pronouncements: i. 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii. 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for holding the order was erroneous he has not made any enquiry whatsoever but proceeded on the basis of his own opinion. Where more tha…

Ganadhipati Construction Private Limited, Patna vs. PCIT, Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

…e as erroneous being prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We draw support from the following judicial pronouncements: i. 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii. 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for holding the order was erroneous he has not made any enquiry whatsoever but proceeded on the basis of his own opinion. Where more tha…

Ganadhipati Construction Private Limited, Patna vs. PCIT, Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

…e as erroneous being prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We draw support from the following judicial pronouncements: i. 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii. 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for holding the order was erroneous he has not made any enquiry whatsoever but proceeded on the basis of his own opinion. Where more tha…

Ganadhipati Construction Pvt Ltd, Patna vs. PCIT, Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

…e as erroneous being prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We draw support from the following judicial pronouncements: i. 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii. 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for holding the order was erroneous he has not made any enquiry whatsoever but proceeded on the basis of his own opinion. Where more tha…

Ganadhipati Construction Private Limited, Patna vs. PCIT, Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

…e as erroneous being prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We draw support from the following judicial pronouncements: i. 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii. 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for holding the order was erroneous he has not made any enquiry whatsoever but proceeded on the basis of his own opinion. Where more tha…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Cenral vs. Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

M/S Rana & Joshi Buildtech P Ltd, Indore vs. The PCIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

…been challenged before the CIT(A). Thus, Ld. AR pleaded that the impugned order of the Pr. CIT is not sustainable and liable to be quashed. In support of his contention he has relied upon following decisions: (i) CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. reported in [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay) (ii) CIT v. Nirma Chemicals Works (P.) Ltd.. reported in [2009] 182 Taxman 183 (Gujarat) (iii) CIT v. Achal Alloys (P) Ltd. as reported in [1996] 218 ITR 46 Page 21 of 27 ITANo.229/Ind/2023 M/s Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (iv) M/s Essargee Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO-1(5), Bhopal [ITA No. 10/Ind/2023] vide order dated 03-08…

Paradip Port Authority, Jagatsinghpur vs. DCIT, Circle1(1), Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

…dabhoy and Co. v. S. P. Jain [1957] 31 ITR 872 (Cal), 6 ITA Nos.208-210/CTK/2024 PCIT vs Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Ltd [2016] 69 taxmann.com 394 (Karnataka HC) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) The learned PCIT perused the submissions of the assessee and remitted the case back to the file of the AO holding that, 4 It is judicially held that where an Axsexsing Officer, who is supposed to protect the interest of reverse as a tax collector and does not perform his job in the right spirit and has passed the assessment order perfunct…

Paradip Port Authority, Jagatsinghpur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

…dabhoy and Co. v. S. P. Jain [1957] 31 ITR 872 (Cal), 6 ITA Nos.208-210/CTK/2024 PCIT vs Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Ltd [2016] 69 taxmann.com 394 (Karnataka HC) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) The learned PCIT perused the submissions of the assessee and remitted the case back to the file of the AO holding that, 4 It is judicially held that where an Axsexsing Officer, who is supposed to protect the interest of reverse as a tax collector and does not perform his job in the right spirit and has passed the assessment order perfunct…

Paradip Port Authority, Jagatsinghpur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

…dabhoy and Co. v. S. P. Jain [1957] 31 ITR 872 (Cal), 6 ITA Nos.208-210/CTK/2024 PCIT vs Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Ltd [2016] 69 taxmann.com 394 (Karnataka HC) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) The learned PCIT perused the submissions of the assessee and remitted the case back to the file of the AO holding that, 4 It is judicially held that where an Axsexsing Officer, who is supposed to protect the interest of reverse as a tax collector and does not perform his job in the right spirit and has passed the assessment order perfunct…

Sushila Bhaurao Deshmukh, Amravati vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

…/s 155(15) in assessee‘s case for A.Y. 2017–18. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee further placed reliance on the following case laws in support of his arguments:– i) CIT v/s Max India Ltd., [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC); ii) CIT v/s Gabrial India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (SC); iii) M/s. Ashok ShrichandDaryani (HUF), ITAno.110/Nag./2018, order dated 27/07/2023 (ITAT–Nagpur); iv) PCIT v/s Kanin (India), [2022] 141 taxmann.com 83 (P&H); v) VipulModi v/s PCIT [2022] 139 taxmann.com 89 (Mum.); and vi) CIT v/s Mr.Subhash Vinayak Supnekar, Income Tax Appeal no.1009 of 2014, judgment dated 14/12/2016 (Bom.) 8. It is sub…

Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

…rence in CIT vs. Mehsana District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. (2003) 184 CTR (Guj.) 608 : (2003) 263 ITR 645 (Guj.). In this connection reference may also kindly be made to the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gabrial India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108. k) The Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 15 CTR (SC) 1: (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) has clearly laid down that section 263 makes it clear" that the prerequisite to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo motu under it, is that the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the i…

Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

…rence in CIT vs. Mehsana District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. (2003) 184 CTR (Guj.) 608 : (2003) 263 ITR 645 (Guj.). In this connection reference may also kindly be made to the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gabrial India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108. k) The Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 15 CTR (SC) 1: (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) has clearly laid down that section 263 makes it clear" that the prerequisite to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo motu under it, is that the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the i…