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 366,005 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.

Bharath Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Pr. CIT, Bangalore -1, Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21

For Appellant: Sri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

…ITA No.788/Bang/2025 Bharath Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE MS. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AssessmentYear:2020-21 Bharath Credit Co-operative Society Limited #748/18 8th Main Road Mahalakshmi Layout Pr. CIT Vs. Bengaluru 560 086 Bengaluru-1 Karnataka Bengaluru PAN NO :AAAAB4144K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent by : Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R. Date of Hearing : 24.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDI…

Vijay Raaz, Godbundar Road, Dist. Thane vs. Ward 16(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 3416/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vijay Raaz Ward 16(1)(5), Mumbai Cottage No. B-13, Cosmos Hawaiian, Near Blue Roof Club, Ghodbunder Vs. Road, Thane, West 400 601. Pan/Gir No. Adlpr8784L (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 29ASection 80G

…63 cannot be invoked merely because the PCIT has a different interpretation of the law. The appellant relies on: 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. CIT v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) 3. CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay HC) 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income dated 29.12.2020, declaring total income at Rs. 1,44,30,450/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify (i) brought forward TDS credit claimed is substantially less than TDS credit carried forward in the ret…

Bajaj Auto Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai

ITA 2666/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 145(2)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 40

…, namely, the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, are cumulatively satisfied, jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be assumed. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) to contend that ‘inadequacy of enquiry' cannot be equated with ‘lack of enquiry' so as to render an assessment order erroneous. 2.6 The Ld. Authorized Representative also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Bismillah Trading Co. Vs. Intelligence Office [2001] 248 ITR 292 (Ker) to explain meaning of the term ‘…

Property Plus Realtors, Delhi vs. Pr, CIT Central Delhi 2, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3406/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263

…ust be both erroneous and prejudicial in order for the Ld. PCIT to evoke her jurisdiction under 263. If the Ld.AO adopts a permissible view on the facts of the case, the Ld. PCIT cannot invoke her jurisdiction u/s 263. 19. In CIT vs. Gabriel India LTD. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), it was held that the CIT while passing order u/s 263 must demonstrate a specific error in the assessment order. A roving direction given to the Ld.AO is not permissible. 20. In ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del), it was laid down that the CIT must conduct/record her independent verification. Mere disagreement with…

Shanti Rice Mills, Karnal vs. Pr.CIT, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1162/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

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

…by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 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. In Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), 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 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-t…

Worldview Education Services Private Lmited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1056/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1056/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Worldview Education Services Private Limited, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad – 500 016. Ward-17(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw9480F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca C. Maheshwar Reddy राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: G Saratha, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA C. Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: G Saratha, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…1 ITA.No.1056/Hyd./2025 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1056/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Worldview Education Services Private Limited, The Income Tax Officer, vs. Hyderabad – 500 016. Ward-17(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. PAN AAACW9480F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee by: CA C. Maheshwar Reddy राज" व "ारा /Revenue by: G Saratha, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 27.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आ…

M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1126/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., CIT

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 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. In Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner (page 113).” A similar view was taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma [2010 SCC OnLine Del 838], where in it was held that once it is inferred from the record of assessment that AO has applied his mind, the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act…

Subhash Jaiswal Associates, Bareilly vs. PCIT Bareilly, Bareilly

ITA 100/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Respondent by

Section 143(3)Section 263

…evenue. If one of them is absent if the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous, but is not prejudicial to the Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the Revenue recours3 cannot be had to S. 263 (1) of the Act. CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 Bombay (1993) In this case, the assessee had claimed certain expenses as revenue expenditure. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) sought details of the same and the assessee gave the details and explained the nature of expenditure. The ITO considered the explanation and allowed the same but did not include the discussion in this regard in the assessment…

Bhavana Co-Op Credit Society Niyamita, Sirsi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sirsi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1074/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

…e Commissioner, simply because according to him, the order should have been written 'more elaborately'. Recourse cannot be taken to section 263 to substitute the view of the Assessing Officer with that of the Commissioner. [See CITv. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom.)]. (viii) The exercise of statutory power under section 263 of the Act is dependent on existence of objective facts ascertained from prima faciematerial on record. The evaluation of such material should show that tax which was lawfully exigible was not imposed. [See Gabriel India Ltd.'s case (supra)]. 8.11 Now, in the light of the above p…

Gonikoppal Primary Rural Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Kodagu vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-3, Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1072/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

International Flavours & Fragrances India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

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

ITA 268/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwalla, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.T

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 801B

…and mean the CIT has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question.” 19. Further, we would like your Honour's kind attention in the case of CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd: [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bonn), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in para 13 (refer para 13 in page no. 37 of case law paper book on jurisdictional grounds) held that 13. “We, therefore, hold that in order to exercise power under sub-section (1) of section 263 there must be material before the Commissioner to consider that the order passed by the ITO was erroneou…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Lucknow vs. M/S. U.P. State Construction & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Lucknow

ITA 617/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263

…the show cause notice. This not only reflects non-application of mind but also amounts to a procedural lapse, thereby rendering the entire revisionary proceedings invalid, unsustainable in law, and liable to be quashed. In Gabriel India Ltd. v. CIT [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom)), it was held that for Section 263 to be validly invoked, the Commissioner must base his conclusions on relevant and applicable material. Reliance on extraneous or unrelated case law indicates failure to apply mind to the facts of the case. By relying on an unrelated and factually distinguishable ITAT order, the Ld. PCIT has acted without p…

U.P Samaj Kalyan Nirman Nigam Limited (Now Known As U.P State Construction and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.), Lucknow vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Lucknow

ITA 67/LKW/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263

…to the show cause notice. This not only reflects non-application of mind but also amounts to a procedural lapse, thereby rendering the entire revisionary proceedings invalid, unsustainable in law, and liable to be quashed. In Gabriel India Ltd. v. CIT [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom)), it was held that for Section 263 to be validly invoked, the Commissioner must base his conclusions on relevant and applicable material. Reliance on extraneous or unrelated case law indicates failure to apply mind to the facts of the case. By relying on an 12 unrelated and factually distinguishable ITAT order, the Ld. PCIT has acted withou…

Ubs Business Solutions (India) Private Limited (Successor to Credit Suisse Services (India) Pvt Ltd), Pune vs. PCIT, Pune - 1, Pune, Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1407/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1407/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ubs Business Solutions (India) V The Principal Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Credit S. Commissioner Of Suisse Services (India) Pvt Income Tax, Ltd.), Pune-1. Cluster A, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, S.No.77, Ground To 5Th Floors In Wing 1, 3Rd To 5Th Floor In Wing 2, Kharadi Midc Knowledge Park, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabcu8718M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal - Ar Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 31.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 144B

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80G

…ision U/s 263 the order has to be erroneous as well as prejudicial. If both the conditions 9 are not satisfied the order cannot be revised. Please refer Malabar ITA No.1224/PUN/2025 [A] Industrial Company Ltd vs. CIT 243 ITR 83(SC), CIT vs Gabrial India Ltd 203 ITR 108 (Bombay).” Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue relied on the order of the Pr.CIT. Ld.DR pleaded that the expenditure on Computer mouse and other peripherals should have been capitalized.Ld.DR pleaded that the AO has not asked any question on this aspect during the assessment proceedings. Hence the Assess…

Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2933/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…2 (SC). 21. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of 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 the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. reported in [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay HC) 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 w…

Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2780/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarbharat Serums & V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Vaccines Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 15(1)(2), 3Rd Floor, Liberty Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – Airoli, Navi Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra 400708, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacb2431M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Mundra,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (Sr.DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…". Thus, in our considered view following Apex Court ruling the Revision orders passed by ld. PCIT are not sustainable in law. 7.2 Reference could also be made to the decision of the hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) (Bom) with regard to assumption of jurisdiction by the PCIT in the para below: "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 law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Comm…

Neetu Hurkat, Pali vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 957/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Javed Khan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…TR 282 (SC), holding that where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one, the order cannot be termed erroneous merely because the Ld. PCIT prefers another view. Similarly, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Gabriel India Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) held that once the Assessing Officer has made due enquiries and taken a conscious decision, the order cannot be branded as erroneous merely because it is not elaborate or detailed in its reasoning. In the present case, the record clearly demonstrates that the Assessing Officer conducted adequate enquiry, examined all relevant aspects, and t…

Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. PCIT - 1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

…urt 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 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 prejudi…

Rico Auto Industries Limited, Ludhiana vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 703/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Rico Auto Industries Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ B-26, Focal Point Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Vs. Ludhiana (Punjab)-141010 Ludhiana (Punjab) - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-8724-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) (Virtual) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. In These Twin Appeals, The Assessee Assails Proposed Revision Of The Assessment Order By Revisionary Authority U/S 263 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 & 2021-22. Facts Are Stated To Be Identical In Both The Years. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2020-21 Wherein The Assessee Challenges Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) (Virtual) – Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…21 ITR 92). The ratio of all these decisions is that where two views are possible and AO has preferred one view against another view, order could not be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 13. In the case of Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108), Hon’ble Bombay High Court observed that from a reading of sub-section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suo-motu revision can be exercised by revisionary authority 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…

Rico Auto Industries Limited, Ludhiana vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 702/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) (Virtual) – Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35