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 366,421 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.

Sanjay Gupta, Panipat vs. Pr, CIT, Rohtak

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

ITA 587/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 587/DEL/2022 [A.Y 2017-18] Shri Sanjay Gupta Vs. The Pr.C.I.T. 16, Amar Bhawan Chowk Rohtak Ward – 5 Panipat, Haryana PAN: ACYPG 6979 Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Deepak Garg, Adv Department By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR Date of Hearing : 04.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 18.05.2023 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is directed towards the order of t…

Bombay Footwear Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -14, Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1645/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhvk-Vk-La- 1645@Eaqcbz@2021 ¼Fu-Oa- 2015&16½ Bombay Footwear Private Limited Deonar Village, Behind Telecom Factory, Deonar, Mumbai-400 088 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaacb2162P Cuke Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-14 Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR &
Section 142(1)Section 263

…f the assessee under the head capital gains would not mean that no enquiry has been conducted by the AO. In support of this argument, the ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision in the P a g e | 4 BOMBAY FOOTWEAR PVT. LTD. case of Gabriel India Limited, 203 ITR 108 (Bombay). The ld. Counsel finally submitted that impugned order u/s 263 of the Act passed by the PCIT is liable to be quashed as the AO has made necessary enquiry in assessment proceedings. 5. Per contra, Dr. Mahesh Akhade representing the Department strongly supported the impugned order. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that a…

M\S. Lexico Ceramics, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 1/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-15 M/S Lexico Ceramics, C/O Kalpesh S. Doshi & Co., Vs Principal Commissioner Of Chartered Accountants, Income-Tax-1, 1006-09, The Spire-2, Near Sheetal Rajkot Park Brts Stop, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot-360005 Pan : Aaefl 8870 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed, Am :

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…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’.” 13. 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 wh…

Kaur Kookies (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi-4, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1119/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 263Section 36

…ITR 758 (Del) PCIT v. Vinita Chaurasia PROPOSITION II; THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CANNOT SIMPLY ASK THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER. HE CAN DO SO ONLY AFTER FINDING ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO INTERST OF REVENUE i) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. ii) 341 ITR 240 (Del) CIT vs. Software Consultants PROPOSITION III: ERROR SHOULD BE ONE WHICH DEPENDED ON FACT OR LAW AND NOT MERE POSSIBLITY OR GUESS WORK i) 167 ITR 129 (Jaipur) CIT vs. Trustees Anupam Charitable Trust PROPOSITION IV: ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MERELY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF ASSESSM…

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

ITA - 247 / 2023HC Delhi01 May 2023
Section 143(3)Section 263(3)

…$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 247/2023 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-7 ..... Appellant Through: Mr Puneet Rai, Sr Standing Counsel. versus M/S PARAMOUNT PROPBUILD PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr Anshul Mittal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA O R D E R % 01.05.2023 [Physical Court Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM Appl.21740/2023 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. ITA 247/2023 & CM Appl.21741/2023 [Applicati…

M J Gold Private Limited, Meerut vs. Pr, CIT Ghaziabad, Ghaizabad

ITA 1164/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 217-18 Mj Gold Private Limited Pr. Cit Ghaziabad Shop No.62, Pinki Complex, Vs Ghaziabad Chatta Ali Raza, Neel Ki Gali, Meerut, Up 2500002 Pan No.Aagcm4151K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2023 Order

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…is held to be erroneous. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DG Housing Projected Limited 343 ITR 329 has held :- “term as erroneous means a wrong / incorrect decision deviating from law”. 11. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gaberiel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 has held as under :- 12. In our understanding of the aforementioned judgment of the Hon’ble High Court an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. In our understanding if an officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment the same cannot be branded erroneous by the Commissioner simply because…

Shiv Laxmi Exports Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT, -5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 544/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

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

…erroneous and he should not set aside the order and direct the AO to conduct enquiry. We note that while passing this decision the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has referred to the decisions in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gabriel India Ltd. in [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom), Commissioner of Income-taxv. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. in [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Del) and ITO Vs D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 342 ITR 329(Del). Considering the above facts of the case, in our opinion, the order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We, therefore respectfully following the ratio laid down in the abo…

Kanaiya Readymade Stores, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 61/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.61/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Kanaiya Readymade Stores, The Pcit-1, Surat. Vs. 3/199-200, Main Bazar, Opp. Laliya Lake, Olpad, Surat – 394540. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfk1700E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2023

Section 143(3)Section 263

…regard. If the action of the authority is challenged before the court it would be open to the court to examine whether the relevant objective factors were available from the records called for and examined by such authority [CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd., (1993) 203 ITR 108, 116 (Bom)]. We note that in assessee`s case under consideration, the assessing officer not only made initial enquiry but also conducted further enquiry and applied his mind and then after took a plausible view. Thus, the various issues raised by ld PCIT in his revision order under section 263 of the Act, have been thoroughly examined by the asse…

Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel HUF, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 60/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel I.T.O.,Ward 1(2)(1), Huf,6, Siddharth Society, Surat. Vs. Behind Afil Tower, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat-395010. Pan: Aakhp 0725 K Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Hearing in Physical Court) Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel I.T.O.,Ward 1(2)(1), HUF,6, Siddharth Society, Surat. Vs. Behind Afil Tower, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat-395010. PAN: AAKHP 0725 K APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Assessee by Shri Hiren Vepari, CA Department by Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-DR Date of hearing 16/03/2023 Date of pronouncement 17/04/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the o…

Balubhai Brijbhukhandas Choksi, Na vs. Arivs.Principal Commissioner of Income Taxvalsad, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.119/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Balubhai Brijbhukhandas Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax-Valsad, Room No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Choksi, Mota Bazar, Vs. Navsari-396445 Income Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali Hill, Santinagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifb 9804 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hiren M. Diwan, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Hiren M. Diwan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, CIT-D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 199CSection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.119/SRT/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Balubhai Brijbhukhandas Principal Commissioner of Income- tax-Valsad, Room No. 301, 3rd Floor, Choksi, Mota Bazar, Vs. Navsari-396445 Income Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali Hill, Santinagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAIFB 9804 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Hiren M. Diwan, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent by: Shri Ravinder Sind…

Mahaveer Prasad Jain, Jaipur vs. Principal CIT-2, New Central Revenue Building

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Avadesh Kumar (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…, by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 merely because he has different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of lack of inquiry that such a course of action would be open. [Para 12] CIT v Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 Bom “The AO has made enquiries . The assessee has given a detailed explanation in writing . Evidently, the claim as allowed by the AO on being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee . The decision of the AO cannot be held to be erroneous simply because in his order he did not made an elaborate discussion in this regard .” In concluding pa…

Dharmendra Mehta, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Avadhesh Kumar (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 44A

…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…

Arun Kumar Palawat, Jaipur vs. Pr CIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 144/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Bhatra (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT D/R
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…there being any material to hold even prima-facie that the assessment order passed by A.O. is erroneous which is not valid in the eyes of law (CIT Vs. Trustees Anupam Charitable Trust (1987) 167 ITR (129) (Rajasthan), CIT Vs. Godawari Sugar Mills Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Shakti Charities (2000) 160 CTR 107 (Mad.). The facts and submissions are verifiable from the assessment record. The Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Green World Corporation (2009) 314 ITR 81 (Supreme Court) held that ‘The jurisdiction under section 263 can be exercised only when both the following conditions are satisfied (i)…

The Commissioner of Income Tax 7 vs. M/S Paville Projects Pvt Ltd

Appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-006126-006126 - 2021Supreme Court06 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55(1)(b)

…ed to loss of tax. The High Court of Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain [(1957) 31 ITR 872 (Cal)] , the High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. T. Narayana Pai [(1975) 98 ITR 422 (Kant)] , the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom)] and the Civil Appeal No. 6126 of 2021 Page 16 of 20 High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Minalben S. Parikh [(1995) 215 ITR 81 (Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr Abraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakri…

Cricket Club of India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1, Mumbai

Accordingly, concise Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant in appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed while all the other grounds raised by the Appellant are dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 3652/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…and disclosed in the computation of income. The directions issued by the PCIT are in the nature of directions to conduct a roving enquiry and therefore, run contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. : 203 ITR 108 (Bombay) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. International Travel House Ltd reported in 344 ITR 554 (Del), Thus, in view of the above we hold that the PCIT was not justified in 26. exercising the powers of revision under Section 263 of the Act. Accordingly, concise Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant in appe…

World Trade Park Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT - 5, Mumbai

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

ITA 1364/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleworld Trade Park Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit -5 4Th Floor, Wtp, Jln Room No. 515, 5Th Marg, Jaipur, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajasthan – 302107 Mk Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr8969E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Sahai.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Dr.Kishordhule.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.03.2023 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)-52, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sahai.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Dr.KishorDhule.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 271B

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

V.L Jewellers, Delhi vs. Circle-49(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 836/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.836/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम V.L. Jewellers, Pr. Commissioner Of 2775, 1St Floor, Gali No. 20-21, Vs. Income Tax, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, Circle 49(1), New Delhi. Room No. 1202, 12, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadfv7989A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

…mmissioner to pass orders u/s 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.” 22. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd., (203 ITR 108) held as under: “…..From a rending of sub-section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suo motu 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 therein by the Income Tax Officer is ‘erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to…

Ruchi Jain, M/S Darsh Marketing, Ratlam vs. PCIT-1, Indore

ITA 76/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर"यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA R KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ruchi Jain, Pr. CIT-1 M/s. Darsh Marketing, Indore बनाम/ 96, Gulmohar Colony, Vs. Ratlam (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN:BWOPS 0676 P Assessee by Shri Rajesh Mehta & Apurva Mehta, Ars Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 07.12.2022/16.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement 23.03.2023 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. BIYANI, AM: Feeling aggrieved by revisi…

Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer vs. CIT(Exemption)/ ITO (Exemption), Jaipur / Jodhpur

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 89/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…3. Jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be invoked for making short enquiries or to go into the process of assessment again and 15 | P a g e again merely on the basis that more enquiry ought to have been conducted to find something. 3.7.3 In Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner (page 113): ". . . From a reading of sub- section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suo motu 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 therein by the Incom…

Shri Manmohan Singh Kapur, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 68/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. No. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…