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 366,416 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.

Cochin International Airport Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The DCIT, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 648/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shrimanomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi K, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 260Section 263Section 80

…by the assessing authority. There must however be circumstances which would make the enquiry prudent, and the said prescription is not to be read or applied de hors the facts and circumstances of the case, even as explained in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom); the same being, rather, an objective fact which must be satisfied on the basis of the material on record. This is in fact 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. 4.3 The tax credit available for AYs. 2004-05 to 2012-13, save fo…

Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 203/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT

Section 115JSection 263Section 35ASection 36(1)(viia)

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA. No. 203/JPR/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYears : 2017-18 M/s. AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. cuke 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 Sanja…

Rits Jewellers Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Faridabad

The Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1886/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Initiating The Proceeding As No Enquiry Was Made By Pr. Cit In Arriving At Conclusion Which Is Contrary In View Of The Jurisdictional & Other High Courts & The Apex Court. D. That Once The Sums Have Been Received Through Banking Channels & Complete Evidences Was Provided During The Course Of The Assessment, Suspicion Raised Purely On Assumptions Is Wholly Unsustainable In Law.

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

…1 Rits Jewelers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, DR. B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER Rits Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Pr. CIT, C/o IPSO Legal H-35, Faridabad 1st Floor, Jangpura Vs. Extension, New Delhi-110 014 PAN-AAFCR 8802D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Mr. Rajiv Saxena, and Mr. Dishant Sethi, Advocates Respondent by Mr. T. Kipgen, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 08/06/2023 Date of Pronouncement 27/07/2023 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM: This appeal has been filed by Assessee against the order passed…

Jasbir Singh, Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi-20, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 422/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Gunjan Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR

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

…en an order 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)…

Tata Aig Life Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3557/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 263Section 44

…1 ITA 3556/Mum/2012 Tata AIG Insurance Company Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.3556 & 3557/Mum/2012 (Assessment years : 2003-04 & 2004-05) TATA AIG LIFE INSURANCE vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME COMPANY LIMITED, 2nd FLOOR, TAX-2, ROOM NO.355, 3RD DELPHI-B WING, ORCHARD FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN AVENUE, HIRANANDANI M.K. ROAD, MUMABI-400 020 BUSINESS PARK, POWAI, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI-400 076 PAN :AABCT3784C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Percy Pardiwala, Shri Hiten Chande…

Tata Aig Life Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3556/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 263Section 44

Shri. Nagaraj Vinayak Joshi, Karawar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 133ASection 263Section 69

…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:- “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, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissione…

Shri. Nagaraj Vinayak Joshi, Karawar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 238/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 133ASection 263Section 69

Mr Ashok Khimraj Jain, Nandubar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nashik

The appeal of the appellant is ALLOWED

ITA 154/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S S Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.154/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Ashok Khimraj Jain, Vimal Emporium, Tilak Rd., Nandurbar – 425 412 Pan : Ahppj6362E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Nashik . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri J.P. Chandraker सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 26/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By The Present Appeal, The Assessee Assailed The Revisionary Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Nashik [For Short ‘Pcit’] Dt. 18/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Assessment Order Dt. 17/11/2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Dhule [For Short ‘Ao’] For The Assessment Year [For Short ‘Ay’] 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Chandraker

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

…rves to be quashed. 8. In the light of aforestated undisputedly facts and circumstances, we see hardly any reason to deviate from the settled legal proposition laid by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in ‘CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd.’ Reported in 203 ITR 108 and ‘CIT Vs Design Automobile Engineers’ reported in 323 ITR 632 (Bom), and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ‘CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd.’ reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del.) in holding that in the absence of any failure on the part of Assessing Officer in making due inquiry(ies), the first limb i.e. an assessment being erroneous fails therefore the very basi…

Shri Bhawani Shankar Parashar, Indore vs. The DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 411/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

Section 263

…rt of Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. Vs. S.P. Jain and Another [31 ITR 872], the High Court of Karnataka in Commissioner of Income- tax, Mysore Vs. T. Narayana Pai [98 ITR 422], the High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [203 ITR 108] and the High Court of Gujarat in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh [215 ITR 81] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Mr. Abaraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [163 ITR 129] interpreting pre…

Parshavnath Builders, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 284/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri MahendraGargieya ,Adv. &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ding it back to the AO to make a futile and duplicate exercise, which has already been done. In other words, the Ld. CIT having all the record before him and felt satisfied, should have dropped the issue in hand there itself. 3.6.2In Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (DPB 38-43), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner (page 113): “. . . From a rending of sub- section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suomotu revision can be exercised by the Commissioner only if, on examination of the records of any proceedings under this Act, he considers that any order passed thereinby…

Abhishek Entertainment and Foods Pvt. Ltdd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-3, Kolkata

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

ITA 54/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 263

…her erroneous nor prejudice to the interest of the revenue as the AO has examined the issue and taken a possible view. The AO has taken a plausible view by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabreal India Ltd. in [1983]203 ITR 108 (Bom-HC). In para (viii) 6 I.T.A. No.54/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Abhishek Entertainment and Foods Pvt. ltd. the PCIT observed that the tax audit report mentions that the TDS has been deducted on the expenses of Rs. 93,83,302/- under various sections of the Act whereas according to the ledger details the TDS on expenditure should have be…

Rajkumar Impex Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT - 4, Chenai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 631/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy (CIT) – Ld.DR

Section 263

…Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). 1.2 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Vikas Polymers (supra), further observed that as regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993 203 ITR 108 (Bombay)], held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary that an "erroneous judgment" means "one rendered according to course and practice of Court, but contrary to law, upon mistaken view of law; or upon erroneous application of legal principles" and thus it is clear that an order cannot be termed as "erroneous" unless it is not in accordance wi…

Sri. Gireeshshastri Shankarshastri Jeere, Gajendragad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 305/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Gireeshshastri Shankarshastri Jeere, The Principal Commissioner Of Prop : Fakeeresh Fuels, Income Tax (Central), Kustagi Road, Main Road, Vs. Bengaluru. Gajendragad – 582 114. Pan : Agupj 2460 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. R. Chandrashekar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri. R. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

Parackal Krishnakutty Prasad, Ernakulam vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi-1, Kochi

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

ITA 468/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jun 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Kuriachan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Prasanth V.K., CIT-DR

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

…4 ParackalKrishnankutty Prasad v. Pr.CIT has to be something on record to arouse or provoke inquiry. An inquiry would only be in wake of circumstances which would make it prudent, and not de hors the same, even as explained in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom). It is this objective fact which must be satisfied on the basis of the material on record, aptly captured by the words “which should have been made” preceding the words “inquiries or verification” in Explanation 2(a) to sec.263, i.e., qua non-application of mind, which forms the basis of invoking sec.263, which we find as missing qua this o…

Rajendrasinh Manubha Jethwa, Porbandar vs. CIT, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 158/RJT/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot16 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…assessment order. The grievance of the 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’.” 8.1 In Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner (page 113) “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 wh…

Ga Infra Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…bove 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…

Jagdeep Bhargava, Hisar vs. Pr. CIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1279/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271Section 50C

…hen an order 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 ". 12. 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)…

Sri. Shailesh Laxmichand Chheda Shah, Vijayapura vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubballi

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

ITA 279/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Shailesh Laxmichand Chheda Shah, The Principal Plot No. 27, Laxmi- Commissioner Of Leela Ashraya, Income Tax, Desai Layout, Hubballi. Station Road, Vs. Vijayapura – 586 101. Pan: Aglpc8728J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nimesh Kesarimal, Ca Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29-05-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 06-06-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.02.2023 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit, Hubli For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Without Prejudice To Each Other, 1. The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hubballi Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Kesarimal, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Shailesh Laxmichand Chheda Shah, The Principal Plot No. 27, Laxmi- Commissioner of Leela Ashraya, Income Tax, Desai Layout, Hubballi. Station Road, Vs. Vijayapura – 586 101. PAN: AGLPC8728J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Nimesh Kesarimal, CA Revenue by : Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 29-05-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 06-06-2023 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against the o…

M/S Aadhar Associates, Bhopal vs. Pr CIT-2, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 300/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Aadhar Associates Pr. Cit-1 76, Shanker Garden Near Bhopal Queen Mery School Vs. Ayodhya By Pass Road Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aavfa 7526 Q Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2023

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

…e 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’.” 7.3 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…