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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.?

990 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 147, Section 143(2).

CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108)

M/S. Ganga Electricals, Nashik vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax.-1, Nashik

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

ITA 215/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…further enquiries to show that the view taken by the AO on merits was erroneous : 1. V. L. Jewellers v. PCIT [ITA No. 836/ Delhi/ 20221 dated 24.03.2023. 2. Premii Valji & Sons v. PCIT [ITANo. 125/Rajkot/20221 dated 09.09.2022. 3. CIT v. Gabrial India Ltd. [203 ITR 108 (Bom)(HC) 15. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that where the revision proceedings u/s.263 were initiated at the instance of proposal for 263 action forwarded by the successor AO and not suo moto initiated by the Pr.CIT, then the revision order u/s.263 is not sustainable in law: 1. Premraj Bhanraj Bafna v. PCIT [ITA No. 317/PU…

Bnp Paribas, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2521/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, A/RFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Dhyani, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28GSection 37Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…en an order 7 is erroneous that the section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous ". 15. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108 has held as under: "The power of suo motu revision under subsection (1) is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction and the same can be exercised only if the circumstances specified therein exist. Two circumstances must exist to enable the Commissioner to exercise power of revision under this sub- section, viz., (i) the order is erroneous; (ii)…

M/S. Balaji Exports, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-27, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 226/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan: A.Y : 2015-16 M/S. Balaji Exports, Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Gala No. E-887/888, . Tax-27, Room No. 301, Apmc Market Vegetable, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Railway Vashi,Navi Mumbai. Station Building, Pan : Aaifb2566Q Tower No. 6, (Appellant) Navi Mumbai (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Agarwal, a/wFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : A.Y : 2015-16 M/s. Balaji Exports, Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Gala No. E-887/888, . Tax-27, Room No. 301, APMC Market Vegetable, 3rd Floor, Vashi Railway Vashi,Navi Mumbai. Station Building, PAN : AAIFB2566Q Tower No. 6, (Appellant) Navi Mumbai (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, a/w. Shri Roshan Ochani, Respondent by : Shri Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 03/07/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 25/07/2024 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M…

Trafigura India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-6, Mumbai

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

ITA 1131/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountat Member Trafigura India Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit-6 Unit No.1101, A-Wing, 501, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Plot No. C, 66G Block, Bhavan, Mg Road, Bkc, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadct3128N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agrawal.Ar Respondent By : Shri Biswanath Das.Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-6, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das.CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…ducted by the A.O. Whereas the A.O has applied his mind and verified the facts. The Ld. AR referred to the Trafigura India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. submissions and explanations filed before the A.O. We find the Hon’ble High Court Bombay in CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108.(Bom) has observed as under: Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - Assessment year 1973-74 - Assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 99,326 described 'as plant relay out expenses' as revenue expenditure and ITO, after making enquiries in regard to nature of said expenditure and considering exp…

Baroda Rajasthan Khestriya Gramin Bank, Ajmer vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/JPR/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Mantri, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…y provision of sec 263 of the Act. Hence revisionary order u/s. 263 dated 27.03.2021 for AY 2016-17 is set aside and assessment order dated 19.12.2018 is restored. f. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd., [1993] 71 Taxman 585/203 ITR 108 held that ITO conclusion cannot be termed as erroneous simply because Commissioner does not agree with his conclusion .A.O. order cannot be held to be “erroneous” simply because in his order he did not make an elaborate discussion 13 Baroda Rajasthan Kheshtriya Gramin Bank vs. PCIT 9. Even otherwise it is pertinent to mention that, the assessme…

Nityanand Baug Co Operative Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA 2209/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Br Baskaran & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhannityanand Baug Co-Operative Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Society Limited Income Tax Plot No. 80/83, Nity Anand Baug, R. Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway C. Marg, Chembur, Mumbai – 400 Station, Commercial Complex, 074. Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 Pan: Aaaan6410C 703. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Nityanand Baug Co-operative Vs. Principal Commissioner of Society Limited Income Tax Plot No. 80/83, Nity Anand Baug, R. Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway C. Marg, Chembur, Mumbai – 400 Station, Commercial Complex, 074. Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 PAN: AAAAN6410C 703. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri. Dinesh R. Shah & Shri. B. R. Vyas Department Represented by : Shri. Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR. Date of conclusion of Hearing : 01.07.2024 Date of Pronoun…

Sanjay Sawhney, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4051/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…bstitute his view in place of the view already taken by the ld. Assessing Officer. This is clearly not permissible u/s 263 of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed in the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd. reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bom). In fact we find that the ld. PCIT does not say that no enquiries were made by the ld. Assessing Officer on the impugned issue of interest expenditure and commission expenditure. The ld. PCIT only says that the enquiries were not made in the manner wanted/desired by ld. PCIT. This aspect of the issue even if held in favour of the revenue wo…

Brij Educational Trust, Meerut vs. CIT (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1498/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2011-12 Brij Educational Trust, Vs. Cit (Exemption), Lucknow A-162, Defence Colony, C.R. Building, Ito, Meerut-250001 (Up) I.P. Estate, (Pan: Aabtb4074C) New Delhi - 110 002 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. RajkumarFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 14(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 26Section 263

…vely that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous, in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue. To support this view, we draw support from decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., reported in 203 ITR 108 wherein, it has been held that that there must be some prima facie material on record to show that the tax which was lawfully eligible has not been imposed or that by application of the relevant statute on an incorrect or an incomplete interpretation, a lesser tax than what was just, has been imposed. On the anvil of the aforesaid case law, it wi…

Anshit Builders & Home Fin Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT Delhi-1, New Delhi

ITA 1168/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…ss there is total non application of mind based on cogent material Reliance was placed on 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. 4.3 It is also submitted that where all particulars are furnished before the learned assessing officer and he has applied his mind then revision is not valid u/s 263 of the Act. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: i) 130 TTJ 669 (Del) Regency P…

Sajjad Ali, Chittorgarh vs. DCIT(Intl)- Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 459/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha (CIT-DR)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 459/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 cuke Sajjad Ali DCIT Vs. S/o Tehir Ali, General Merchant, (Intl.)- Jaipur Sadar Bazar, Kapasan, Chittorgarh LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASOPA 8295 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. jktLo dh vksj…

Jayant Kumar, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 263Section 56(1)

…of the said Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter". No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.” 11. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108, the Hon’ble High Court held that “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 Commissioner simply because, according to him, the orde…

M/S. Corporate Leisure & Property Development Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 652/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Sri Shantilal G., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

…uashed in the interest of equity & justice. 3.16 He further relied on following case laws: a) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (243 ITR 83) b) CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282) c) K.R. Satyanarayana Vs. CIT (279 Taxman 175) d) CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) e) CIT Vs. Vikas Polymers (341 ITR 537) f) CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Limited (332 ITR 167) g) CIT Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. (360 ITR 44) h) The Totgars’ Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. Vs. PCIT (ITA No.168/Bang/2023) i) The Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Limited Vs. DCIT (ITA No.892/Kol/2019) 4. The ld. D.R. submitted that there…

Worley India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commission of Income Tax 2, Mumbai

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

ITA 554/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

…rified the facts and has not doubted the genuineness of expenditure. The Ld. AR referred to the submissions, financial statements, judicial decisions and explanations filed before the A.O. We find the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd.(203 ITR 108) has observed as under: Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - Assessment year 1973-74 - Assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 99,326 described 'as plant relay out expenses' as revenue expenditure and ITO, after making enquiries in regard to nature of said expenditure and considering explanati…

Gyan Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd, Varanasi vs. ACIT Central Circle-03, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 178/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 175 To 178/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2018-19 Gyan Infrabuild Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of Awlespur, Kandwa Vs Income-Tax (Central), Patna Varanasi - 221006 [Pan: Aaecg0509Mc] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate & Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Even Dt. 26/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2018-19. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. Relevant Content Of The Petition Dt. 08/06/2023 Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “…….. 1. That We Had Received An Order U/S 263 Passed By Id Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Patna On 26.03.2022. 2

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A.H. Chowdhary, CIT, D/R

Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 263

…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…

Gyan Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd, Varanasi vs. ACIT Central Circle-03, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 177/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 175 To 178/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2018-19 Gyan Infrabuild Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of Awlespur, Kandwa Vs Income-Tax (Central), Patna Varanasi - 221006 [Pan: Aaecg0509Mc] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate & Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Even Dt. 26/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2018-19. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. Relevant Content Of The Petition Dt. 08/06/2023 Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “…….. 1. That We Had Received An Order U/S 263 Passed By Id Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Patna On 26.03.2022. 2

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A.H. Chowdhary, CIT, D/R

Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 263

…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…

Gyan Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd, Varanasi vs. ACIT Central Circle-03, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 176/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 175 To 178/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2018-19 Gyan Infrabuild Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of Awlespur, Kandwa Vs Income-Tax (Central), Patna Varanasi - 221006 [Pan: Aaecg0509Mc] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate & Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Even Dt. 26/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2018-19. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. Relevant Content Of The Petition Dt. 08/06/2023 Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “…….. 1. That We Had Received An Order U/S 263 Passed By Id Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Patna On 26.03.2022. 2

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A.H. Chowdhary, CIT, D/R

Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 263

…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…

Gyan Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd, Varanasi vs. ACIT Central Circle-03, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 175/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 175 To 178/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2018-19 Gyan Infrabuild Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of Awlespur, Kandwa Vs Income-Tax (Central), Patna Varanasi - 221006 [Pan: Aaecg0509Mc] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate & Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Even Dt. 26/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2018-19. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. Relevant Content Of The Petition Dt. 08/06/2023 Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “…….. 1. That We Had Received An Order U/S 263 Passed By Id Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Patna On 26.03.2022. 2

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A.H. Chowdhary, CIT, D/R

Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 263

…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…

Pallathukadavil Ibrahimkutty Abdul Kabeer, Ernakulam vs. The PCIT Kochi-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the above terms, and his SA dismissed

ITA 428/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicialmember & Sa No. 78/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pallathukadavil Ibrahimkutty Principal Cit – 1 Abdul Kabeer C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road 71, Pallathukadavil Vs. Kochi 682018 Kanjoor P.O., Ernakulam 682575 [Pan: Aaopi0584P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Padmanathan K.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54B

…ons which were required to be recorded by the AO, and ought to have remanded the matter to the latter. Sure, there must thus be circumstances which would make the enquiry prudent, and not de hors the same, even as explained in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom), the same being an objective fact which must be satisfied on the basis of the material on record. This in fact is captured by the words: ‘which should have been made’ occurring in Explanation 2(a) to s. 263(1) with reference to any inquiry or verification by the AO. 4.2 Section 54B of the Act, claim for deduction under which has been direct…

G.S.Atwal & Co (Engg) Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kol-2, Kol, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 524/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 524/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 G.S. Atwal & Co. (Engg.) Pvt. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ltd. Vs 2, Kolkata 4B, Little Russell Street Kolkata - 700071 [Pan : Aabcg0816E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata -2, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”] Dt. 29/03/2023, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Raised In The Various Grounds Of Appeal Is Against Invalid Exercise Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act Thereby Passing Revisionary Order U/S 263 Of The Act Dt. 29/03/2023, Setting Aside & Revising The Assessment Framed U/S 143(3)/143(3A) & (3B) Of The Act Dt. 29/03/2021. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 19/09/2018 Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.4,24,51,417/-. Subsequently, The Return Was Revised On 23/09/2019 Declaring Total Loss

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, D/R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 524/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 G.S. Atwal & Co. (Engg.) Pvt. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Ltd. Vs 2, Kolkata 4B, Little Russell Street Kolkata - 700071 [PAN : AABCG0816E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue by : Shri S. Datta, CIT, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 22/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R…

M/S. Linde India Limited (Formerly Boc India Limited), Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/KOL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ssessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Linde India limited (formerly BOC India Limited) by ld. PCIT is invalid and may be quashed. In defense of arguments, the Ld. A.R relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. in [1993]203 ITR 108 (Bom). The Ld. A.R also submitted that where the PCIT has exercised the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and stated that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue then the PCIT ought to have recorded a categorical finding and should record reasons as to how assessment order is erroneous whereas the PCIT…

CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.

M/S. Ganga Electricals, Nashik vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax.-1, Nashik

Bnp Paribas, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 1, Mumbai

M/S. Balaji Exports, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-27, Navi Mumbai

Trafigura India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-6, Mumbai

Baroda Rajasthan Khestriya Gramin Bank, Ajmer vs. PCIT, Udaipur

Nityanand Baug Co Operative Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

Sanjay Sawhney, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(3), New Delhi

Brij Educational Trust, Meerut vs. CIT (Exemption), Lucknow

Anshit Builders & Home Fin Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT Delhi-1, New Delhi

Sajjad Ali, Chittorgarh vs. DCIT(Intl)- Jaipur, Jaipur

Jayant Kumar, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

M/S. Corporate Leisure & Property Development Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(4), Bengaluru

Worley India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commission of Income Tax 2, Mumbai

Gyan Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd, Varanasi vs. ACIT Central Circle-03, Patna

Gyan Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd, Varanasi vs. ACIT Central Circle-03, Patna

Gyan Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd, Varanasi vs. ACIT Central Circle-03, Patna

Gyan Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd, Varanasi vs. ACIT Central Circle-03, Patna

Pallathukadavil Ibrahimkutty Abdul Kabeer, Ernakulam vs. The PCIT Kochi-1, Kochi

G.S.Atwal & Co (Engg) Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kol-2, Kol, Kolkata

M/S. Linde India Limited (Formerly Boc India Limited), Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata