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.

Essel Corporate Resources Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-6, Mumbai

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

ITA 1207/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

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…

National Udyog, Hisar vs. Pr CIT, Hisar

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

ITA 1272/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…n 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 ". 16. 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)…

Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1) & Tps Thrissur, Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 628/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daskerala State Financial Dy. Cit, Circle - 1(1) & Tps Enterprises Ltd. Thrissur Bhadratha, Museum Road Vs. Chembukkavu - 680020 Thrissur [Pan:Aabct3817A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Harikrishnanunny, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 40

…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. We find no scope for interference in view of the clear law and the facts…

Simbhaoli Power Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT Central, Kanpur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 505/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Anshul Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Gupta, CIT- DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…n 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 ". 13. 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)…

Simbhaoli Power Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT Ghaziabad, New Delhi

ITA 4620/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Anshul Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Gupta, CIT- DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 69C

…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 ". 13. 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)…

The Synthetic & Art Silk Mills Research Association, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exem), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1833/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10(21)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)Section 263Section 35(1)(ii)

…ction 263 of the Act i.e., firstly, the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous; and secondly, it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue on account of error in the order of assessment. The Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 has explained as to when an order can be termed as erroneous as follows:- 12 The Synthetic & Art Silk Mills Research Association “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 the law makes a certain assessment, t…

Bhagwati Abhilasha Conventure, Mumbai vs. Circle 26(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1698/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalbhagwati Abhilsha Conventure A/30, Patil Bhuvan, N.S.B. Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai-400080 Pan: Aahfb9198D ...... Appellant Vs. Pcit, Mumbai-41, Circle 41(2)(1) R. No. 541, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23(5)Section 263

…llowing judicial pronouncements alongwith its submissions as under: i) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. V. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83(SC) ii) CIT V. Nirav Modi (2017) 390 ITR 292(Bom) iii) Moil Ltd. V. CIT (2017) 396 ITR 244 (Bom.) iv) CIT V. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) In all the above cases, it has been held that the pre-requisite for the exercise of jurisdiction u/s. 263, the order of the A.O. should be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It is also held that once the A.O. is satisfied about the claim on the basis of materials before him, he need not make further enq…

Aster Dm Healthcare Ltd, Kochi vs. The DCIT, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 98/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasaster Dm Healthcare Ltd. Dy. Cit, Ix/475L, Kuttisahib Road Corporate Circle-1(1) (Aster Medicity Hospital) Central Revenue Building Vs. Cheranallore, Kochi 682027 I.S. Press Road [Pan:Aaccd7912K] Kochi 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35A

…. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Raja & Co. v. CIT [2011] 335 ITR 381 (Ker). The same in fact stands co-opted on the statute per Explanation 2(a) to s. 263(1) w.e.f. 01.06.2015. At the same time, there must be, as explained in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom), circumstances which would make the enquiry prudent, and not de hors the same; that 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) supra with reference to any inquiry or verification by the AO. The lega…

Kaustubh Gupta, Meerut vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1125/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Kaustubh Gupta, 412/3, Versus Pr. C.I.T., Mangal Pandey Nagar, Ghaziabad. Meerut. Pan: Aabcs3651B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Waseem Arshad, Cit/Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.12.2023 Order Per Saktijit Dey, Vice-

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Waseem Arshad, CIT/DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…CIT, 125 taxmann.com 432 (ITAT Delhi) (vii). CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., 333 ITR 547 (Del). (viii). Meerut Roller flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 420 ITR 216 (All) (ix). CIT vs. Smt. D. Valliammal, 230 ITR 695 (Mad.) (x). CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 6. Learned Departmental Representative submitted, in course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has not at all enquired into the genuineness of purchase and sale of shares by the assessee. He submitted, subsequent investigations reveal that the assessee has purchased the shares from entry operator through off line transactio…

Konsortia Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 220/KOL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 263(1)Section 28Section 73

…and also not against the provisions of the Act. The ld. A.R therefore submitted that revisionary order passed by PCIT is invalid and in defense of arguments he relied on the decision Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabreal India Ltd. in [1983]203 ITR 108 (Bom-HC) find on the merit. The Ld. A.R submitted that the issue raised by the PCIT is factually and legally incorrect. The Ld. A.R referred to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Snowtex Investment Ltd. vs. PCIT in Civil Appeal No. 4483 of 2019 Arising out of SLP ( c) No. 20017 of 2017 dated 30.04.2019 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Cour…

Rajkumar Goyal, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Indore

In the result, appeal of the assesse is dismissed

ITA 438/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniraj Kumar Goyal Pr. Cit-2 42, Narmda Marg Barwaha Indore Vs. Khargone (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Ackpg 1896N Assessee By Shri Ram Gilda, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.11.2023

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ewellers vs. Addl. CIT 395 ITR 148 (Bom) 3. Attar Singh Gurmukh singh vs. ITO 191 ITR 667 (SC) 4. ITO vs. Jitendra Kumar Mandlecha 23 ITJ 644 5. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. 243 ITR 83 6. CIT vs. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bombay HC) 7. CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bombay HC) 8. Jeevanlal Ltd. vs. aCiT 208 ITR 407 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the assessee has not disputed the issue of outstanding CST to be disallowed u/s 43B of the Act. Therefore, the order of the AO is erroneous being contrary to the provisions of the Act. He has further submitted that the AO has also not considered su…

Hemkunt Service Station P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1113/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18 Hemkunt Service Station P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Link Road, Circle-10(1) Near Lodhi Hotel, New Delhi. Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 003 Pan Aaach0310H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 283Section 40Section 68

…power vested in him in accordance with law and arrived at a conclusion. Such a conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous because the Ld. PCIT does not feel satisfied with the conclusion as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom). In other words, erroneous order does not mean an order with which the Ld. PCIT is unable to agree as observed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in Smt. Lila Chaudhary vs. CIT 167 Taxman 1 (Gau). Prejudicial to the interest of Revenue would mean an erroneous order which goes against the interest of revenue collection. Both the conditions i.…

Raghuvir Singh, Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

ITA 1132/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 54B

…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 ". 23. 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)…

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 104/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

…ssessment order. The grievance of the Commissioner was that the Assessing Officer should have made further inquiries rather than accepting the explanation. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a case of lack of inquiry" B. CIT. v. Gabriel India Ltd [[1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay)]; Wherein it was held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, "If there are no materials on record on the basis of which it can be said that the Commissioner acting in a reasonable manner could have come to such a conclusion, the very initiation of proceedings by him will be illegal and without jurisdiction. The Commissioner cannot initiate procee…

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 103/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

…ssessment order. The grievance of the Commissioner was that the Assessing Officer should have made further inquiries rather than accepting the explanation. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a case of lack of inquiry" B. CIT. v. Gabriel India Ltd [[1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay)]; Wherein it was held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, "If there are no materials on record on the basis of which it can be said that the Commissioner acting in a reasonable manner could have come to such a conclusion, the very initiation of proceedings by him will be illegal and without jurisdiction. The Commissioner cannot initiate procee…

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 102/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

…ssessment order. The grievance of the Commissioner was that the Assessing Officer should have made further inquiries rather than accepting the explanation. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a case of lack of inquiry" B. CIT. v. Gabriel India Ltd [[1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay)]; Wherein it was held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, "If there are no materials on record on the basis of which it can be said that the Commissioner acting in a reasonable manner could have come to such a conclusion, the very initiation of proceedings by him will be illegal and without jurisdiction. The Commissioner cannot initiate procee…

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 101/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

…ssessment order. The grievance of the Commissioner was that the Assessing Officer should have made further inquiries rather than accepting the explanation. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a case of lack of inquiry" B. CIT. v. Gabriel India Ltd [[1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay)]; Wherein it was held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, "If there are no materials on record on the basis of which it can be said that the Commissioner acting in a reasonable manner could have come to such a conclusion, the very initiation of proceedings by him will be illegal and without jurisdiction. The Commissioner cannot initiate procee…

Cabot Technology Solution Private Limited, Kochi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed of on the afore-stated terms

ITA 609/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dascabot Technology Solutions Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax – 1 204, 2Nd Floor, Lulu Cyber Tower Vs. Cr Building , Is Press Infopark, Kochi 682042 Road, Kochi 682018 [Pan:Aadcc 9320K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Allen Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Revision Of It’S Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 20.12.2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Act (Pr. Cit), Vide His Order Dated 18.01.2022. 2.1 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Company In Software Development Business, Returned, For The Relevant Year, An Income Of Rs.3,67,574 Under The Regular Provisions Of The Act & A Book-Profit Of Rs.14,33,474 U/S.115Jb Of The Act, Paying The Higher Tax On The Latter. The Same Was Subject To Regular Assessment, Determining The Income Under The Regular Provisions At Rs. 8,10,750 & At The Returned Book-Profit Under Mat Provisions. The Assessment Record Was Subsequently Examined By The Learned Pr. Cit In Exercise Of His Revisionary

For Appellant: Shri Allen Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT- D.R
Section 10ASection 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial Member Cabot Technology Solutions Principal Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax – 1 204, 2nd Floor, Lulu Cyber Tower vs. CR Building , IS Press Infopark, Kochi 682042 Road, Kochi 682018 [PAN:AADCC 9320K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Allen Joseph, CA Revenue by: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT- D.R. Date of Hearing: 18.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the revision of it’s order under sec…

National Stock Exchange of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result ground no.1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and grounds no

ITA 730/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.730 & 731/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18) National Stock Exchange Vs. Dcit, Circle 7(1)(1) Of India Limited Room No. 126, 1 St Floor, Exchange Plaza, Bandra Aaykar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra M.K. Road, East, Mumbai – 400051 Churchgate -400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacn1797L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Jehangir Mistri Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Srinivasu

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.730 & 731/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18) National Stock Exchange Vs. DCIT, Circle 7(1)(1) of India Limited Room No. 126, 1 st Floor, Exchange Plaza, Bandra Aaykar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra M.K. Road, East, Mumbai – 400051 Churchgate -400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AAACN1797L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Jehangir Mistri Sr. Adv. Harsh Kapadia Respondent by : Srinivasu Date of Hearing 02.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement 26.10.2023 आदे…

Madanlal Lodha, Raipur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 32/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: Ita 32/Rpr/2022 (Assessment Years:2017-18) Madanlal Lodha, V Pr. Commissioner Of Income Ta, C/O M/S Prakash Trading Comp. S Raipur-(I) Shop No. 109 & 110, Textile Market, Pandri, Raipur, (C.G.) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shri S.K. Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03-08-2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20-10-2023

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 96

…1. On the basis of aforesaid submission, Ld. AR argued that since the issue has already been examined by the Ld. AO the same is not open for the revision u/s 263 of the I.T. Act. Ld. AR placed is reliance on the following case laws: CIT Vs Gabrial India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (B.com.) Colour Publications P. Ltd. vs Pr. CIT (2018) 196 TTJ 257 (B.com.), Magic Landcon LLP & Anr. Vs Pr. CIT(2020) 204 TTJ 785 (Del.) 12 12. Ld AR further explained that the provisions of RFCTLARR Act and its applicability for land acquisition and granting of compensation therein. It is submitted that the acquisition in the case of assessee…