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

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquiry malabar industrial section 263(1)lack of enquiry prejudicial to interest of revenue revision u/s 263 revision under section 263 assessment order erroneous erroneous and prejudicial section 263 section 26 non-application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.

Idemia Syscom India Private Limited, Noida vs. CIT(Tp), Delhi-2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 647/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT- DR

Section 263Section 92C

…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 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 fall in the cate…

Kems Service Private Limited, Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Patna

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

ITA 227/PAT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

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

…vt. Limited & ITA Nos. 225-227/PAT/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-2009 to 2010-2011 Kems Services Pvt. Limited (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax -vs.- Shantilal Agarwalla (1983) 142 ITR 778 (Patna); (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax -vs.- Gabriel India Limited (203 ITR 108 (Bom.). 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee in his next proposition submitted that assessments in these assessment years for A.Ys. 2008-09 and 2009-2010 have been framed under section 153C. This section contemplates that if during the course of search, some incriminating material was found pertaining to other person than the searched person, the…

Kems Service Private Limited, Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Patna

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

ITA 226/PAT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

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

…vt. Limited & ITA Nos. 225-227/PAT/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-2009 to 2010-2011 Kems Services Pvt. Limited (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax -vs.- Shantilal Agarwalla (1983) 142 ITR 778 (Patna); (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax -vs.- Gabriel India Limited (203 ITR 108 (Bom.). 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee in his next proposition submitted that assessments in these assessment years for A.Ys. 2008-09 and 2009-2010 have been framed under section 153C. This section contemplates that if during the course of search, some incriminating material was found pertaining to other person than the searched person, the…

Kems Service Private Limited, Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Patna

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

ITA 225/PAT/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

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

…vt. Limited & ITA Nos. 225-227/PAT/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-2009 to 2010-2011 Kems Services Pvt. Limited (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax -vs.- Shantilal Agarwalla (1983) 142 ITR 778 (Patna); (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax -vs.- Gabriel India Limited (203 ITR 108 (Bom.). 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee in his next proposition submitted that assessments in these assessment years for A.Ys. 2008-09 and 2009-2010 have been framed under section 153C. This section contemplates that if during the course of search, some incriminating material was found pertaining to other person than the searched person, the…

Kems Services Pvt Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-Central, Patna

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

ITA 122/PAT/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

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

…vt. Limited & ITA Nos. 225-227/PAT/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-2009 to 2010-2011 Kems Services Pvt. Limited (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax -vs.- Shantilal Agarwalla (1983) 142 ITR 778 (Patna); (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax -vs.- Gabriel India Limited (203 ITR 108 (Bom.). 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee in his next proposition submitted that assessments in these assessment years for A.Ys. 2008-09 and 2009-2010 have been framed under section 153C. This section contemplates that if during the course of search, some incriminating material was found pertaining to other person than the searched person, the…

Kems Services Pvt Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-Central, Patna

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

ITA 121/PAT/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

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

…vt. Limited & ITA Nos. 225-227/PAT/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-2009 to 2010-2011 Kems Services Pvt. Limited (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax -vs.- Shantilal Agarwalla (1983) 142 ITR 778 (Patna); (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax -vs.- Gabriel India Limited (203 ITR 108 (Bom.). 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee in his next proposition submitted that assessments in these assessment years for A.Ys. 2008-09 and 2009-2010 have been framed under section 153C. This section contemplates that if during the course of search, some incriminating material was found pertaining to other person than the searched person, the…

Kems Services Pvt Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-Central, Patna

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

ITA 120/PAT/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

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

…vt. Limited & ITA Nos. 225-227/PAT/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-2009 to 2010-2011 Kems Services Pvt. Limited (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax -vs.- Shantilal Agarwalla (1983) 142 ITR 778 (Patna); (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax -vs.- Gabriel India Limited (203 ITR 108 (Bom.). 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee in his next proposition submitted that assessments in these assessment years for A.Ys. 2008-09 and 2009-2010 have been framed under section 153C. This section contemplates that if during the course of search, some incriminating material was found pertaining to other person than the searched person, the…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-7 vs. M/S Paramount Propbuild Pvt. Ltd

ITA/247/2023HC Delhi19 Mar 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…2024:DHC:2211-DB ITA 247/2023 Page 1 of 20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 06 March 2024 Judgment pronounced on:19 March 2024 + ITA 247/2023 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-7 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC with Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mr. Rishab Nangia & Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advs. Versus…

M/S. Abhinav Enterprises, Indore vs. PCIT-2, Indore

ITA 339/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Abhinav Enterprises, Pr. Commissioner Of 85, Income-Tax-2, Ramchandra Nagar Extn., Indore. बनाम/ Aerodrum Road, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan : Aanfa6300Q Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263

…TR 289 (Delhi) (c) CIT Vs. Govindram Sakseria Trust 166 ITR 580 (MP) (d) CIT Vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. 171 ITR 141 (MP) Page 14 of 23 M/s. Abhinav Enterprises, Indore. Vs. PCIT-2, Indore. ITA No. 339/Ind/2023 – AY 2015-16 (e) CIT Vs. Gabriel (India) Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 15. While arguing, Ld. AR also submitted that in the show-cause notice the PCIT has wrongly taken the figure of purchases of Rs. 17.60 crores of ‘trading segment’ as pertaining to ‘contract segment’ and also wrongly picked a figure of Rs. 21.51 crores as receipts relating to ‘contract segment’. There is no figure of Rs. 21.51 crores in…

Shree Alekh, Bhavnagar vs. PCIT Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…CIT vs. Nirma Chemicals Works (P.) Ltd. – 309 ITR 67 (Guj) Gujarat Power Corporation vs. ACIT – 350 ITR 266 (Guj) Rayon Silk Mills vs CIT – 221 ITR 155 @ 158-159 (Guj Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT – [2003] 263 ITR 437 (P&H) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. – [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers – 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products – 333 ITR 547 @ 557-558 (Del)” 5.1 The Ld. AR further summited that it is settled law that if two views are possible as regards to a particular issue and Assessing Officer adopts either of two such views, then the CIT cannot invoke jurisdiction under Section 263.…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…vs. Shanti Lai Aggarwala ii) 96 ITR 310 (All) CIT vs. Late Sunder Lal iii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J.P. Srivastava & Sons v. CIT iv) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. Kashi Nath & Co. iv) 394 ITR 758 (Del) PCIT.v. Vinita Chaurasia 16.1 Then, in “CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd.” 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and “CIT Vs Software Consultants” 341 ITR 240 (Del), it has been held that the revisional authority cannot simply ask the AO to re-examine the matter and that this can be done only after the assessment order is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 16.2 In “CIT V Trustees Anupam Charitable Trust” 167 IT…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…vs. Shanti Lai Aggarwala ii) 96 ITR 310 (All) CIT vs. Late Sunder Lal iii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J.P. Srivastava & Sons v. CIT iv) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. Kashi Nath & Co. iv) 394 ITR 758 (Del) PCIT.v. Vinita Chaurasia 16.1 Then, in “CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd.” 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and “CIT Vs Software Consultants” 341 ITR 240 (Del), it has been held that the revisional authority cannot simply ask the AO to re-examine the matter and that this can be done only after the assessment order is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 16.2 In “CIT V Trustees Anupam Charitable Trust” 167 IT…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…vs. Shanti Lai Aggarwala ii) 96 ITR 310 (All) CIT vs. Late Sunder Lal iii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J.P. Srivastava & Sons v. CIT iv) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. Kashi Nath & Co. iv) 394 ITR 758 (Del) PCIT.v. Vinita Chaurasia 16.1 Then, in “CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd.” 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and “CIT Vs Software Consultants” 341 ITR 240 (Del), it has been held that the revisional authority cannot simply ask the AO to re-examine the matter and that this can be done only after the assessment order is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 16.2 In “CIT V Trustees Anupam Charitable Trust” 167 IT…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Delhi vs. M/S Clix Finance India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1428/2018HC Delhi01 Mar 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

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

…ck the issues for a fresh consideration. 14. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 43 7 (P&H)], CIT v. Eicher Ltd. [(2007) 294 ITR 310 (Del.)], CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108], CIT v. Nirma Chemicals Ltd. [(2009) 309 ITR 67], CIT v. Ashish Rajpal [(2010) 320 ITR 674 (Delhi)]. 15. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 16. Vide order dated 06.11.2019, this Court framed the following question of law:- “A. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, t…

Sulochana Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

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

ITA 187/KOL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 144Section 147Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'ए' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजेश कुमार, लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री संजय शमाा, न्याधयक सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 187/KOL/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sulochana Sarees Pvt. Ltd..………………………………..Appellant [PAN: AAOCS 0481 N] Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Kolkata.................................................Respondent Appearances: Assessee represented by – Sh. Miraj D. Shah, A/R. Department represented by – Sh. S. Datta, CIT (D/R). Date of concluding the hearing : December…

Satbir Mahato, Hooghly vs. PCIT- 5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 71/KOL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg &Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69

…aside the assessment order by invoking section 263 of the Act on the ground that he does not agree with view taken by the AO. In defense of arguments he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. in [1983]203 ITR 108 (Bom-HC). 6. The Ld. D.R on the other hand relied on the order of PCIT heavily by submitting that there were huge deposits in the name of assessee proprietary concern 5 I.T.A. No. 71/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 Satbir Mahato into two bank accounts which were duly opened after taking assessee’s signature and by filing KYC documents of th…

M/S. Rdc Ventures, Mumbai vs. PCIT-27, Mumbai

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

ITA 1915/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Rdc Ventures Vs. Principal Commissioner Office No.-110 Of Income Tax-27 Ridhhisidhhi Premises Room No. 401, 4 Th Floor, Society, Near Sahakar Tower No. 6, Vashi Talkies Tilak Nagar, Railway Station, Chembur (West) Mumbai- Commercial Complex, 400089 Vashi, Navi Mumbai -400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aakfr0914Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dhran Gandhi Respondent By : Sanyogita Nagpal Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2024

For Appellant: Dhran GandhiFor Respondent: Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ssessment unit, therefore, territorial PCIT, Mumbai has no power to exercise his supervisory power u/s 263 of the Act. He also referred the various judicial pronouncements: “i. (1996) 57 ITD 328 (Bom) Trustees of Parsi Panchayat Funds & Properties vs. DIT ii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabrial India Ltd.; 314 ITR 81(SC) CIT vs. Greenworld Corporation iii. 152 TTJ (Mumbai) 265 Essar Steel Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT iv. ITA(TP) no. 3121and 3122/Mum./2013 Tata Communications Limited vs. DCIT dated 20.12.2013 v. 132 taxmann.com 231 (Del) Abha Bansal vs. PCIT) vi. (1996) 57 ITD 328 (Bom) Trustees of Parsi Panchayat Funds & Pro…

Karamveer Electronics Limited, Meerut vs. Pr, CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1223/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Devashish Bhadauria, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)

…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 ". 17. 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)…

Vibgyor Enterprises, Kolkata vs. PCIT (Central) - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1058/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Vibgyor Enterprises Pcit (Central)-1, Kolkata Ground Foor, 380A, Prince Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Anwar Shah Road, Chowringhee Square, Lake Gardens S.O., Vs. Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700045 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacfv8713B Assessee By : Shri Amit Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pn Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri PN Barnwal, DR

Section 133ASection 263

…n place of opinion of the ld. AO merely on the ground that he was not agreeing with the view of the ld. Assessing Officer. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. in [1993]203 ITR 108 (Bom), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under: “14. 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 Revenue.…

Edisons Infrapower Multiventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax Range -6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1208/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleedisons Infrapower & Vs. Pr. Cit, Range – 6, Multiventures Pvt Ltd Room No.501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1633J Appellant .. Respondent Essel Corporate Vs. Pr.Cit, Range – 6, Resources Pvt Ltd Room No. 501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aabce0473D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Jay Bhansali.ARFor Respondent: Shri Jogendra Singh.Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Edisons Infrapower & Vs. Pr. CIT, Range – 6, Multiventures Pvt Ltd Room No.501, 18th Floor, A-Wing, 5th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, NM Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. PAN/GIR No. : AAACE1633J Appellant .. Respondent Essel Corporate Vs. Pr.CIT, Range – 6, Resources Pvt Ltd Room No. 501, 18th Floor, A-Wing, 5th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, NM Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. PAN/GI…