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 366,339 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.

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

ITA 327/PAT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

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

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…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

ITA 326/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

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

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…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

ITA 325/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

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

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…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

ITA 323/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

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

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…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

ITA 322/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…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…

Rashleela Enterprises Private Limited, Jaipur vs. The PCIT (Central), Jaipur

ITA 461/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Sept 2024AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153DSection 263

…above discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case we vacate the impugned revision order. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. It is further submitted that, the Hon'ble Bombay 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…

International Seaport Dredging Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT - 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1597/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baram Som, IRS, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 71Section 79

…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. It is only in cases of "lack of inquiry" that such a course of action would be open. In Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner (page 113) ** 23. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma [2010 SCC OnLine Del 838], wherein, it was held that once it is inferred from the record of assessment that AO has applied its mind, the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act would fal…

Mahendra Kumar Sharma, Churu vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 725/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. R. P. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

…possible view already taken by the ld AO on the impugned issue on the allowability of LTCL. Reliance in this regard is 17 Mahendra Kumar Sharma vs. PCIT placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and in the case of Nirav Modi reported in 390 ITR 292 (Bom). It is also pertinent to note that the Special Leave Petition (SLP) preferred by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the judgement of Nirav Modi was dismissed in 77 taxmann.com 15 (SC). 10. We also find that the Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act , which was h…

Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Chennai vs. DCIT Intl Tax 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1319/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 239Section 263

…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. It is only in cases of "lack of inquiry" that such a course of action would be open. In Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner (page 113) ** 23. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma [2010 SCC OnLine Del 838], wherein, it was held that once it is inferred from the record of assessment that AO has applied its mind, the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act would fal…

The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20

ITA 2481/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Ι.Τ.Α. No. 2480 /Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 2481 /Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) The National Bank Of Agriculture & Rural Development C-24, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aaact4020G Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Adv. & Shri Niraj Sheth & Shri Gunjan Kakkad, Ar Revenue/Respondent By : Shri S. Srinivasu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2024 Order Per Padmavathy S, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai 3 [In Short 'The Pcit'] Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 14.03.2024 For

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…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. The High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [(1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad)] interpreting "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue". The High Court held: "In this context, (it…

The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20

ITA 2480/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…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. The High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [(1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad)] interpreting "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue". The High Court held: "In this context, (it…

Ved Prakash & Sons Liumbers Pvt Ltd, Karnal vs. Pr. CIT, Karnal

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4079/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganeh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

…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. It is only in cases of "lack of inquiry" that such a course of action would be open, In Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner (page 113) ....... 23. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma [2010 SCC OnLine Del 838], wherein, it was held that once it is inferred from the record of assessment that AO has applied its mind, the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act woul…

Raghuleela Estates Private Limited, Bandra, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2595/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 24BSection 263

…section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous ". 13. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. reported in [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), while dealing with identical issue has held as under:- 13. 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 Rev…

Raghuleela Estates Private Limited, Bandra, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2594/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous ". I.T.A. No. 2594/Mum/2024 12. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. reported in [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), while dealing with identical issue has held as under:- 13. 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 Rev…

DCIT 14.1.1, Mumbai vs. Aadi Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3215/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawaldcit – 14(1)(1), Vs. M/S.Aadi Industries Ltd 320/7, Siddhivinayak Room No. 432, 4Th Floor Housing Society, Aayakar Bhavan, Hingwals Lane, M.K.Road, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai -400020. Mumbai – 400075. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8256G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr Respondent By None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 07.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec143(3) R.W.S263 U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT – 14(1)(1), Vs. M/s.Aadi Industries Ltd 320/7, Siddhivinayak Room No. 432, 4th Floor Housing Society, Aayakar Bhavan, Hingwals Lane, M.K.Road, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai -400020. Mumbai – 400075. PAN/GIR No. AAACJ8256G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant by Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR Respondent by None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 07.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement 12.08.2024 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: “ The appeal is filed by the…

Guardian India Operations Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT 1, Chennai

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

ITA 842/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik ShahFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, IRS,CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…sought for by the Ld. AO vide subsequent notices dated February 5, 2021 (Question C) and March 26, 2021 (Question A) issued under section 142(1) of the Act. The assessee relies on the Hon'ble Bombay High Court ruling in the case of Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] (203 ITR 108), wherein the High Court held that- "The ITO in this case had made enquiries in regard to the nature of the expenditure incurred by the assessee. The assessee had given detailed explanation in that regard by a letter in writing All these are part of the record of the case. Evidently, the claim was allowed by the ITO on being satisfied with the ex…

Nirav Chandrakantbhai Bhalani, Bhavnagar vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1041/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1041/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year :2016-17 Nirav Chandrakantbhai The Pr.Cit,Ahmedabad-1 Bhalani बनाम/ Ahmedabad-380 015 Plot No.9, Vibhapark Society V/S. Adhewada, Bhavnagar Bhavnagar – 364 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bcipb 8197 E (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 27/03/2024 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-1 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Pcit” In Short] In Exercise Of His Revisionary Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” In Short) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Nirav Chandrakantbhai Bhalani Vs. The Pcit Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del-HC). 2. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC). 3. CIT Vs. Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 310 (All.). 4. Rajendrakumar Kantilal Patel Vs. PCIT – ITA No. 354/SRT/2018 (ITAT Surat). 5. Gabrial India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom). 2.7. The Ld.PCIT, however, set aside the order of the AO and directed the AO to pass a fresh assessment order. While doing so, he produced the details of documents seized during the course of search and drew inference Nirav Chandrakantbhai Bhalani vs. The PCIT Asst. Year : 2016-17 from the impounded documents that the assessee has paid c…

Mahesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 936/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…le Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Cisco Systems (India) Pvt Ltd (2021) 437 ITR 349. 4.4 He relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Klaxon Trading Pvt Ltd (2023) 118 CCH 187 relying on the judgement of Mumbai High Court in 203 ITR 108, wherein it has been held as under: ‘'15.Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission 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, mere…

Mahesh Reddy, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bengaluru

ITA 1379/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Sri K.R. Pradeep, A.R. & Ms. Girija G.P., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Kiran D., D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…le Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Cisco Systems (India) Pvt Ltd (2021) 437 ITR 349. 4.4 He relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Klaxon Trading Pvt Ltd (2023) 118 CCH 187 relying on the judgement of Mumbai High Court in 203 ITR 108, wherein it has been held as under: ‘'15.Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission 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, mere…

Colgate-Palmolive (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Mumbai

ITA 2645/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 2645/Mum/2024

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry & Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RsFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT, D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80GSection 80J

…section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous ". 13. Further, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. reported in [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), while dealing with identical issue has held as under:- 13. 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 Rev…