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 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 366,369 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.

Vipul M Shah (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO -17(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhvipul M Shah (Huf) Vs. The Ito 17(3)(5) 404, Commerce House, Mumbai 140, N.M. Road, Fort, Maharashtra – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aabhv3153Q Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Vimal Punamiya Respondent By : Gotimukul Santosh Kumar Date Of Hearing 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.10.2023

For Appellant: Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Gotimukul Santosh Kumar

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68

…P a g e | 1 Vipul M Shah (HUF) Vs. ITO 17(3)(5) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Vipul M Shah (HUF) Vs. The ITO 17(3)(5) 404, Commerce House, Mumbai 140, N.M. Road, Fort, Maharashtra – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No:AABHV3153Q Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant by : Vimal Punamiya Respondent by : Gotimukul Santosh Kumar Date of Hearing 20.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement 16.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assesse is directed against the order passed by t…

M/S. Radhe Exim Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 75/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.75/Rjt/2021 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 M/S. Radhe Exim Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Plot No.G-557, Vs. Of Income-Tax-1, Gidc Metoda, Rajkot. Kalawad Road, Metoda, Rajkot-360021. Pan: Aadcr1763P

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…Commissioner was that the Assessing Officer should have made further inquires rather than accepting the explanation. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a case of ‘lack of inquiry’.” 10.3 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom), discussed the law on this aspect in length in the following manner: “The consideration of the Commissioner as to whether an order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, must be based on materials on the record of the proceedings called for by him. If there are no materials on record on the basis of whi…

Bhushan Kumar Gupta, Haryana vs. Pr, CIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1081/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Shri Chandra Mohan Gargbhushan Kumar Gupta Vs. Pr. Cit House No.130, Sector-11, Rohtak Panipat, Haryana -132 103 Pan No. Aatpg 2846 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Revenue By Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.10.2023

Section 115BSection 263Section 68Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. G. S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Bhushan Kumar Gupta Vs. Pr. CIT House No.130, Sector-11, Rohtak Panipat, Haryana -132 103 PAN No. AATPG 2846 D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Revenue by Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing: 03.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 06.10.2023 PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) - Rohtak dated 22.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2017-18.…

Rama Shanker Khemka, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT Delhi-1, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1785/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT- DR

Section 132Section 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 ". 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)…

Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Meerut vs. PCIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1148/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 263Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

…ve passed an order; (iii) The ld PCIT should consider that the order so passed is erroneous; The Ld. PCIT should consider that the order so passed is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 9. It is held in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. Reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bombay) that suo-motu revision can be exercised by the ld. PCIT only on Page 11 of 23 Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. PCIT examination of record under the Act if the PCIT considers that any order passed therein by the AO is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It is not an arbitrary power. It can be exe…

Kunj Bihari Dawa Dukan, Ambikapur, Surguja vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 122/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.122/Rpr/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Kunj Bihari Dawa Dukan Pcit Opp. Govt. Distt. Hospital, Raipur - 1 Bilaspur Road Ambikapur, Surguju Chhattisgarh – 497 001

For Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…cash deposit. 8. Issue already examined by AO. Jurisdiction u/s 263 could not be assumed. Reliance on:- i) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT- (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) ii) CIT vs Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) iii) CIT vs Gabrial India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) 9. Regarding issue of cash deposit, no query raised by Ld. Pr. CIT and no opportunity allowed to the assessee. Revision order is liable to be cancelled on this account. 10. Sec. 263 envisages passing of revision order "after giving assessee an opportunity of being heard. Before deciding an issue, providing of opportunity to assessee is e…

Aarti Sponge and Power Ltd., Raipur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur - 1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 78/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 263

…to 32 of PB, at PN 26. Books and ledger accounts produced before AO. He added net commission as .-'•" unexplained income. Once the issue was looked into by AO, jurisdiction u/'s 263 could not have been invoked. Reliance on: - CIT vs Gabrial India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.), PN 104 to 111 of PB, relevant finding on PN 110, para no. 15. - CIT vs Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj.). PN 112 to 116 of PB, relevant finding at PN 1 15, para no. 7. - Colour Publications P. Ltd. vs Pr. CIT (2018) 196 TT.T 257 (Bom.), PN 117 to 127 of PB, relevant finding at PN 127, para no. 17. Revision order passed it's 263 i…

M/S. Blue Cross Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1806/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhblue Cross Laboratories Vs. Pcit-3 Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 612, 6 Th Floor, 1, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Peninsula Chambers, M. K. Road, Peninsula Corporate Mumbai-400020 Park, G. K. Marg, Mumbai-400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacb1549G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa R. Gandhi &For Respondent: Shri. S. Sribivasu, DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Blue Cross Laboratories Vs. PCIT-3 Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 612, 6 th Floor, 1, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Peninsula Chambers, M. K. Road, Peninsula Corporate Mumbai-400020 Park, G. K. Marg, Mumbai-400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AAACB1549G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Ms. Krupa R. Gandhi & Ms. Vidhi Salot, ARs Respondent by : Shri. S. Sribivasu, DR. Date of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement 30.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH :- 1. The pre…

Laxmi Narayan Agarwal, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 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” and held that, ‘in the case of inadequate enquiry, provision…

Sunil Prasad, Chapra vs. Pr. CIT-1, Patna

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

ITA 177/PAT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271D

…to Ld. Pr. CIT the AO should have taken a view with which Ld. Pr. CIT does not agree with. Ld. A/R in support of his arguments relied on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Mukul Kumar reported in 2009(4) PLJR 417 and CIT Vs. Gabriel India Limited reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bom), Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Vs. PCIT in ITA No. 24/PAT/2021 for AY 2015-16 and Akash Kumar Vs. PCIT in ITA No. 143/PAT/2019. Ld. A/R therefore, prayed that in view of the ratio laid down in the above decisions, the revisionary order passed by Ld. Pr. CIT is not valid and may kindly be quashed. 5. Ld. D/R on the other hand, strongly relied on t…

Girnar Software Private Limited, 6Th Floor, Jaipur Textile Market, B-2, Near Model Town, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur vs. PCIT – 2, Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

…sessing officer sought to be revised is erroneous and (b) such order is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and the said principle has been held in the following decisions as well: • CIT vs. Max India Limited: 295 ITR 282 (SC) • CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd: 203 ITR 108 (Bom) • CIT vs. Smt. Meenalben S. Parikh: 215 ITR 81 (Guj.) • CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers: 259 ITR 502 (Guj) • CIT vs. Mehsana Dist. Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd.: 263 ITR 645 (Guj.) In the instant case, the assessment proceedings were initiated for complete scrutiny and one of the reason was ‘investment’. Also, a specific query on ‘investment’…

Neena Dadwani, Ujjain vs. PCIT-1, Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 131/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Neena Dadwani, Pcit-1, 6, Sunshine Tower, Indore. बनाम/ Priyadarshini Square, Ujjain Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abopd0598D Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2023

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Neena Dadwani, PCIT-1, 6, Sunshine Tower, Indore. बनाम/ Priyadarshini Square, Ujjain Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) PAN: ABOPD0598D Assessee by Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, CA Revenue by Shri P.K.Mishra, CIT DR Date of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement 24.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by revision-order dated 25.03.2022 passed by learned Pr. Commissio…

Pawan Kumar Ruia, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-30, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2238/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 2238/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Pawan Kumar Ruia,...............................Appellant 5, Sunny Park, Kolkata-700019 [Pan: Acnpr3823K] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-30, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700068 Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate , Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr.D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

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

…ied on a series of decisions in support of his case: (i)Director of Income Tax vs. Jyoti Foundation in 357 ITR 388 (Del); 4 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Pawan Kumar Ruia (ii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), (iii) Gabriel India(1993)203 ITR 108 (Bom); (iv) ITO Vs D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 342 ITR 329(Del). 5. Ld. D.R., on the other hand, submitted that by exercising the revisionary jurisdiction by the ld. PCIT, no prejudice going to be caused to the assessee as the assessee would be given sufficient opportunity in the set aside proceedings to explain the source of money and if…

Dinesh Kumar Agarwalla, Amlapara vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhanbad

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

ITA 12/RAN/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 263

…aid view is not correct and some different view is required to be taken in the matter. Under these circumstances, the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of various forums namely Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Gabriel India Ltd. in [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom), Commissioner of Income- Page 4 of 5 I.T.A. No.: 12/RAN/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dinesh Kumar Agarwalla. tax vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. in [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Del) wherein it has been held that Ld. AO has examined the issue and taken a plausible view that jurisdiction is not available with Ld. Pr. CIT on the issue u/s 263 of the Act. Accor…

Nimita Soni Prop. Swaranlata Traders, Bikaner vs. PCIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 41/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 263

…venue by itself would not be enough to vest the Commissioner with the power of suo moto revision because the first requirement of Section, namely, the order is "erroneous" is lacking. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: 1. CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom); 2. BCCI v. Director of IT (Exemptions), 278 ITR (AT) 83 (Mum); 3. JK Industries Ltd. v. ACIT, 283 ITR 101 (Cal); 4. CIT v. Thangamaligai (GR), 259 ITR 129 (Mad); 5. CIT v. Girdhari Lal, 258 ITR 331 (Raj); and 6. CIT v. Giridhar Lal, 258 ITR 231 (Raj). (c) Even assuming that the enquiries made by the Assessing Officer are inadequate, the ju…

Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1051/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1050 & 1051/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17) Mumbai Postal Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Ward 17(2)(1) Society Limited, Gpo Room No. 115, 1 St Floor, Building, Fort, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai – 400001 C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaajm0032G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Neena Jeph

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…in full in respect of both the incomes, which now proposed to be denied benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(1) of the Act, cannot be a ground for resorting to action u/s 263. Refer CIT VS. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust 171 ITR 698 & CIT VS. Gabriel India 203 ITR 108 Annexure 10 & 11. All the judgments relied upon by the assessee and further additional decisions are stated at the end of these submissions. (Page 15 onwards). Copies of all these judgments are enclosed for ready reference. Therefore, in our view, the revision u/s 263 proposed by you, is against the laid down principles and law and therefore need…

Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1050/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Neena Jeph

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Gm International, Delhi vs. AO Ward-36(1), Delhi

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

ITA 786/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson CIT- DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 786/DEL/2022 [A.Y 2017-18] G.M. International Vs. The Pr. C.I.T B – 212, New Fruit Market Delhi - 12 Azadpur, Delhi PAN : AANFG 8963 B (Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv Shri Mahir Aggarwal, Adv Shri Shailesh Gupta, CA Department By : Shri T. James Singson CIT- DR Date of Hearing : 09.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 16.08.2023 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is pre…

Allied Photographics India Ltd., Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1083/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S Alliedphotographics Vs. Pr.Cit-1, India Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Room No.330, Kasturi Buildings, 3Rd Floor, Jamshedji Tata Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, M.K. Road, Mumbai -400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. : Aabca2068A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitish Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Smiti Samant. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.08.2023 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)-1, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Nitish Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Smiti Samant. DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263

…The Ld. AR referred to the submissions, financial statements, judicial decisions and explanations filed before the A.O. We find the Hon’ble High ITA Nos. 1083/Mum/2023 M/s Allied Photographics India Ltd. Mumbai. 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 explanat…

Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 279/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA. No. 279/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2018-19 cuke M/s. AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. The Pr. CIT CP-3-235,Industrial Area, Apparel Park, Vs. Jaipur -1 Jaipur. Mahal Road, Jagatpura, Jaipurm- 302022 LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACL 2777 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri…