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 366,459 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.

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

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 67/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

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…

Smt Harneet Kaur Juneja, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 66/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

Diamond Heritage, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 116/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. K. Bhagat, CA & Sh. Vikas Bhagat, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT DR

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

…is unsustainable in law.—Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. vs. S.P. Jain & Anr. (1957) 31 ITR 872 (Cal) : TC 57R.129, CIT 7 Diamond Heritage v. Pr.CIT vs. T. Narayana Pai (1975) 98 ITR 422 (Kar) : TC 57R.185, CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 114 CTR (Bom) 81 : (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) : TC 57R.213 and CIT vs. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh (1995) 127 CTR (Guj) 333 : (1995) 215 ITR 81 (Guj) : TC 57R.312 approved; Venkatakrishna Rice Co. vs. CIT (1987) 62 CTR (Mad) 152 : (1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad) : TC 57R.303 disapproved.” 9. In the present case, it could not be said that the assessment order was passed by the AO without making…

V Guard Industries Limited, Vennala vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kochi

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

ITA 63/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainv-Guard Industries Ltd. Principal Cit-1, 42/962, Vennala High School C R Building, I S Press Road, Vs. Road, Vennala, Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682028 [Pan: Aaacv5492Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prashant V.K., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 28/12/2018 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (‘Pr. Cit’ For Short) Vide Order U/S. 263 Dated 22/03/2021. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 08/03/2022, Though Delayed By 256 Days, Was Admitted In View Of The Blanket Condonation By The Apex Court In Suo Motu Wp(C) No.3/2020, Dated 10/01/2022, Excluding The Period From 15/3/2020 To 28/02/2022 In Reckoning The Delay In Computing Limitation Under Law & The Hearing Accordingly Proceeded With. The Assessee Is A Company Manufacturing Electrical Cables, Pumps, Solar Water Heaters, Etc. & Trading In Electrical & Electronic Goods. Revision Of It’S Impugned Assessment Is On Several Issues On Which The Revisionary Authority Found An Absence Or Lack Of Enquiry By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…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. 4.7 We may next discuss the case on merits. In the facts of the case, as no…

Shree Hanuman Credit Souhard Sahakari Limited, Chikodi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 29/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P

…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:- Page 14 of 19 “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…

Shri Chandubhai Ramjibhai Kaqthiriya, Jasdan, Dist. Rajkot-364490 vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 70/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…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’.” 6.2 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…

M/S Banke Bihari Foods (P) Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-1, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/PAT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

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

…gned order. On the strength of above details, he submitted that ld. Commissioner failed to appreciate the controversy in right perspective under the ratio of law laid down in various authoritative pronouncements namely- (i) CIT –vs.- Gabriel India reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bom.); (ii) Malabar Industries –vs.- CIT reported in 243 ITR 83 (SC); (iii) Laxmi Rice Mills –vs.- CIT reported in 97 ITR 258 (Patna). He submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable. 8 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 M/s. Banke Bihari Foods (P) Limited 10. On the other hand, ld. CIT(DR) contended that no finding is discernable qua verific…

Fedbank Financial Services Limited, Ernakulam vs. The DCIT Circle 1(1), Kochi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 838/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. K. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prashanth V.K., CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…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 Commission…

Malanadu Milk Producers Society, Kottayam vs. DCIT, Exemption, Tvm, Thiruvananthapuram

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 633/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Jose Kappan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 263

…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:- ITA NoS.632 & 633/Coch/2022 Page 10 of 12 “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 canno…

Malanadu Farmers Society, Kottayam vs. DCIT Exemptions, Tvm, Thiruvananthapuram

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 632/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Jose Kappan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 263

…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:- ITA NoS.632 & 633/Coch/2022 Page 10 of 12 “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 canno…

Corus Vitrified Pvt. Ltd., Morbi vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

…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’.” 5.3 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…

Shri Mukesh Chand Mal Pitti, Gandhidham-Kutch vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot21 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal. Total Tax Effect (See Note Below)

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-D.R

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

M/S Tricity Realty LLP, Mumbai vs. PCIT(Central)-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 750/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M Balaganeshvk-Vk-La- 750@Eaqcbz@2022 ¼Fu-Oa- 2017&18½ M/S Tricity Realty Llp 1001/1002, Bhumiraj Costarica, Plot No.1-2, Sector 18 Off Palm Beach Road, Sanpada (E) Navi Mumbai-400 705 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aakft6601L Cuke Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cen.)-2 Room No.1920, 19Th Floor, Air India Building Nariman Point, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 021

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Agarwal izfroknh }kjk@For Respondent: Shri Prakash R. Mane &

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…e reason that the AO has not given any finding in the assessment order would not mean that the issue was not examined by the AO P a g e | 6 M/S TRICITY REALTY LLP in scrutiny assessment. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 has held that where the claim of the assessee was allowed by the AO on being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the assessment order cannot be held to be erroneous simply because in the assessment order, he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard. In the case of Nirav Modi vs. CIT (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court ha…

Sh Kelkar & Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1611/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sh Kelkar & Company Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax-4, Devkaran Mansion, 36, Vs. Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Mangaldas Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacs 9778 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate & Shri Harsh Kothari Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 13/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…the Ld. Counsel relied on he Ld. Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabrial India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 Bombay India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 Bombay. He further relied on the . He further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Central (III) v. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 Bombay and submitted Central (III) v. Nirav…

Kamalesh Kumar Sheth (HUF), Chennai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Chennai

In the result, the appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 215/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri S.Senthil Kumar, (CIT)-Ld. DR

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

…s of "lack of inquiry" that the Commissioner is empowered to exercise his revisional powers by calling for and examining the records of any proceedings under the Act and passing orders thereon. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993 203 ITR 108 (Bombay)] held as under: - "The Commissioner cannot initiate proceedings with a view to starting fishing and roving enquiries in matters or orders which are already concluded. Such action will be against the well-accepted policy of law that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated bey…

M/S. Siddharth Carbochem Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Circle 1(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1156/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blesiddharth Carbochem Products Ltd V. Pcit, Circle-1(3)(1) 42 B Wing, 4Th Floor, Mittal Tower Room No- 330, Aayakar Bhawan Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aabcs1437P

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Siddharth Carbochem Products Ltd v. PCIT, Circle-1(3)(1) 42 B Wing, 4th Floor, Mittal Tower Room No- 330, Aayakar Bhawan Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai-400020 PAN: AABCS1437P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Madhur Agrawal & Shri Fenil Bhatt Department Represented by : Smiti Samant Date of Hearing : 06.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 15.02.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal i…

Om Sai Housing & Development Co. P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 635/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…lier years for which scrutiny assessment has taken place. Assessee 8 ITA.NO.635/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2015-16) Om Sai Housing & Development Co. Private Limited relied on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd 1993 [203 ITR 108 BOM]. 7. Ld. PCIT considered the above submissions and rejected the same by observing as under: - “5. The contention of the assessee, that the Order passed by the AO is not erroneous in so far as being prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, is not found to be acceptable given the facts of the case. Assessee has shown interest income of Rs.1…

Shri Tulshibhai Polabhai Sakariya, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 93/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 93/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year:2015-16 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Tulsibhai Polabhai Sakariya Vs. The Pr. C.I.T, 2-Bombay Housing Society, Rajkot-1, Meghdhara, University Road, Rajkot. Opp. G. K. Dholakiya, Rajkot

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

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 93/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year:2015-16 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Tulsibhai Polabhai Sakariya Vs. The Pr. C.I.T, 2-Bombay Housing Society, Rajkot-1, Meghdhara, University Road, Rajkot. Opp. G. K. Dholakiya, Rajkot PAN: EEDPS9685N (Applicant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 94/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year:2015-16 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Khodabhai Polabhai Sakariya Vs. The Pr. C.I.T, Megh…

Saif Partners India IV Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Int. Taxation-3(1)(2), Delhi

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

ITA 1138/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Singh – CIT-DR

Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…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 ". 18. 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)…

Navinchandra K. Patel, Surat vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.57/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Navinchandra K. Patel, Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat. 5, Kaaliytawadi Faliya, At Post Saniya Hemad, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Birpp6292D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/02/2023 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat (In Short “Ld. Pcit”], Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Dated 31.03.2021. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Passing Revisionary Order U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act Setting Aside The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 24.11.2017 For The Year Under Consideration Although Said Order Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Observing That Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Erroneous On The Ground That Indexed Cost Of Acquisition Of Property Is Under Assessed By Rs.2,12,58,035/-. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Observing That Order

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

…onouncements;  CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 (Del HC);  Ramakant Singh Vs. CIT 140 TTJ 41 (Patna ITAT);  Vodafone Essar South Ltd. vs CIT 141 TTJ 84 (Del ITAT);  CIT Vs. Developement Credit Bank Ltd. 323 ITR 206 (2010);  CIT vs Gabrial India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (1993);  Russel Properties Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT 109 ITR 229 (Cal);  CIT Vs. Vikash Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Del); 18. In this regard, we also place reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Fab India Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, 201 Taxman 173 wherein under the similar facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble court observed as un…