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.

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 108)

Shri Nitin Bothra, Indore vs. He PCIT -1 Indore, Indore

ITA 108/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Nitin Bothra Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abqpb0064J Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…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 Page 12 of 17 Shri Nitin Bothra Assessment year 2017-18 based on materials on the record of the proceedings called for by him…

Subhash Chand Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1063/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…to mean that there was non-application of mind on the part of the assessing officer on this issue. [Refer; Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H); CIT v. Eicher Ltd.: 294 ITR 3 lO(Deh); CIT v. Anil Kumar: 335 ITR 83 (Del.); CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.: 203 ITR 108 (Bom.)] 11. That the PCIT erred in not following the binding principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghanshyam: 315 ITR 1 and in various other judgements squarely applicable to the facts of the case of the appellant herein. 12. That the PCIT erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that Explanation 2 to sectio…

Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1061/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…to mean that there was non-application of mind on the part of the assessing officer on this issue. [Refer; Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H); CIT v. Eicher Ltd.: 294 ITR 3 lO(Deh); CIT v. Anil Kumar: 335 ITR 83 (Del.); CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.: 203 ITR 108 (Bom.)] 11. That the PCIT erred in not following the binding principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghanshyam: 315 ITR 1 and in various other judgements squarely applicable to the facts of the case of the appellant herein. 12. That the PCIT erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that Explanation 2 to sectio…

Satish Kumar Dhingra, Haryana vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1060/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…to mean that there was non-application of mind on the part of the assessing officer on this issue. [Refer; Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H); CIT v. Eicher Ltd.: 294 ITR 3 lO(Deh); CIT v. Anil Kumar: 335 ITR 83 (Del.); CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.: 203 ITR 108 (Bom.)] 11. That the PCIT erred in not following the binding principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghanshyam: 315 ITR 1 and in various other judgements squarely applicable to the facts of the case of the appellant herein. 12. That the PCIT erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that Explanation 2 to sectio…

S Krishna Murthy, Tirupati vs. Income Tax Officers, Ward-1(2), Tirupati

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 424/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Krishna Murthy Vs. Income Tax Officer Tirupati Ward 1(2) Pan: Aozps5794Q Tirupati (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashank Dundu,Advocate Revenue By: Shri K.E. Sunil Babu, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/02/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.12.2017 Of The Learned Pr.Cit Tirupati, Relating To A.Y.2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief , Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 14.02.2017 Admitting Taxable Income Of Rs.9,10,510/- & Agricultural Income At Rs.2,40,000/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny To Examine “(I) Whether The Cash Deposit Has Been Made From Disclosed Sources & (Ii) Whether Investment & Income Relating To Properties Are Duly Disclosed”. Accordingly Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee In Response To Which The A.R Of The Page 1 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Dundu,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.E. Sunil Babu, DR

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

…rounds raised by the assessee should be allowed. He also relied on the following decisions: i) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCJ Securities Pvt Ltd in W.P (C) 6415/2022 dated 4.5.2022. ii) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd (203 ITR 108) iii) Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer (1978) 114 ITR 404 (AP) 7. The learned DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the learned PCIT. He submitted that the case was selected for scrutiny to verify the investment and income relating to properties, however, the Assessing Officer has not examined the same and therefore,…

Rakshita Patel, Delhi vs. AO Ward 49(2), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 647/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri VedJain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.P. Kipgen, CIT- DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 54

…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 ". 13. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108 has held as under: “The power of suo motu revision under subsection (1) is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction and the same can be exercised only if the circumstances specified therein exist. Two circumstances must exist to enable the Commissioner to exercise power of revision under this sub-section, viz., (i) the order is erroneous; (ii)…

Shri Iqbal Singh, Moga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 105/ASR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

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

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

…if it is proved that the assessment order is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The question as to when an order can be termed as "erroneous" was explained by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd [1993] 203 ITR 108/71 Taxman 585 (Bom.) as under: — "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 Commissioner simply because, according to him, the…

Shri Praful Gautambhai Kothari, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 163/RJT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 163/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, (Conducted through E-Court, Rajkot) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, And Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 163/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 Praful Gautamlal Kothari, Pr.C.I.T, “VEER DARSHAN”, Vs. Rakot-1, 32A Panchvati Society, Rajkot. Rajkot 360005. PAN: ACTPK7377H Assessee by : Shri Gaurang Khakhar, A.R Revenue by : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 01/11/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 31/01/2023 आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT M…

Bhartesh Jain, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

ITA 326/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

…hold the grievance of the assessee and quash the impugned revision order as devoid of jurisdiction. 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…

Shri Hari Kishan Goyal, Indore vs. Pr CIT-2, Indore

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

ITA 157/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEBER, SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTNT MEMBER Shri Hari Kishan Goyal, Indore

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-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’.” 7.3 In Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner (page 113) I.T.A No. 157/Ind/2020 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 10 Shri Hari Kishan Goyal vs. Pr. CIT-2 “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…

Nms Entrprises, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT -27, Mumbai

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

ITA 1103/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalenms Enterprises Vs. Pr. Cit – 27, Shop No. 1 & 2, Plot Room No. 401, 4Th No. 9, Sector No. 34, Floor, Tower No. 6, Kamothe, Vashi Rly Stn Navi Mumbai-410209 Commercial Complex, Navi Mumbai -400703 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfn9167A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Subodh Ratnaparkhi.Ar Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade.Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.01.2023 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)-27, Mumbai, Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh Ratnaparkhi.ARFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade.CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24Section 263

…he view propagated in the show cause is a debatable view. In such circumstances, the asst. order cannot be termed as erroneous. In support, the assessee relies upon the decision of the Hon. Jurisdictional High court in the case of CIT -vs- Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108, (Bom)(1993), the Hon. High Court held as under 10. The power of suo moto revision under sub-section (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., (…