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 366,470 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 Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Tilak Bhawan, Harda vs. PCIT-1, Bhopal

ITA 87/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohal Garg & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Pr. Cit-1, बनाम/ Harda Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Adypa 9036 B Assesseeby Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2023

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…

Shabana Bee, Indore vs. The ITO 3(3), Indore

ITA 19/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shabana Bee, Pcit-1, 786, Vishwas Indore बनाम/ Nagarbanzari, Vs. Pithampur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Asfpb 7940 R Assessee By Shri Subhash Chandra Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2023

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

Raj Abhishek Corporation, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 117/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.117/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Raj Abhishek Corporation Principal Commissioner Of Income 501,Kohinoortextiles Market, Tax, Surat-1, Room No.123, Aaykar Vs. Ring Road, Surat-395002 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat—395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfr 6297 D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ketan Jagirdar, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Jagirdar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…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-…

M/S. Pyrotech Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur vs. Pr. CIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/JODH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

…CIT 289 ITR 226(Gau.) also refer, Saw Pipes Ltd v/s Add. PR. CIT 94 TTJ 1036(Del) 17. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s PR. CIT 159 CTR(1)(SC), PR. CIT v/s Rayn Silk Mills 221 ITR 155(Guj.) 18. CIT v/s Paras Cotton Co. 288 ITR 211(Raj.) 19. Gaberial India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 20. CIT v/s Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292(Raj.) 8 ITA 3/JODH/2021 PYEROTECH ELECTRONICS PVT LTD VS PR. CIT, UDAIPUR 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR has supported the order of the ld. Pr. CIT and stated that the AO has not done proper and detailed inquiry, verification and examination which was necessary and there is lack of inquiry.…

Shri Khalid Aman, Bhopal vs. The PCIT-2, Bhopal

ITA 225/IND/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Khalid Aman, Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aarpa 4443 L Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2023

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

Nisarg Associates, Mumbai vs. PCIT Mumbai-20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 755/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenisarg Associates V. Ld. Pr.Cit – Mumbai – 20 Room No. 418, Piramal Chambers 1304, Ashok Heights, Near Nicco Circle Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Nikolas Wadi Road, Gundavalli Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400069 Pan: Aahfn4619F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By Shri Ronak G. Doshi & : Shri Chaitanya D. Joshi Department Represented By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…for the purpose of section 263. For the above contention, Ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following case laws: - (i). Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (243 ITR 83) (SC) (ii). CIT Vs. Max India Ltd (295 ITR 282) (SC) (iii). CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) (Bom HC) (iv). CIT Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd. (2014)(226 Taxman 165)(Bom HC) (v). CIT Vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. (2014)(367 ITR458)(Bom HC) (vi). Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010)(321 ITR 92)(Bom HC) 15. Ld. AR contended that both conditions of section 263 i.e. order is 'erroneous’ and 'prejudicial to the interest of revenue' are conjunct…

Bhagawati Abhilsha Conventure, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1028/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blebhagwati Abhilsha Conventure V. Pr. Cit – Mumbai – 17 A/35, Patil Bhuvan, N.S.B. Road 120, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan Mulund (W), Mumbai - 400080 Avenue-3, Near Videsh Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Pan: Aahfb9198D Bandra(E), Mumbai – 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri M. Subramanian Department Represented By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 263Section 43C

…23 of the Act. The assessee relied on the following judicial decisions: 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. V. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. CIT v NiravModi [2017] 390 ITR 292 (Bom.) 3. Moil Ltd. V. CIT [2017] 396 ITR 244 (Bom.) 4. CIT V. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 5. CIT V. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) 4.4 The closing stock consisting of 29 units of property are occupied/ used for the purpose of assessee's business and therefore, not chargeable to tax as per the provisions of section 22 of the Act Needless to mention that the unsold flats are held as stock in trade and therefore, no notiona…

Teleperformance Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-5, Mumbai

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 976/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 976 & 977/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Teleperformance Global Vs. The Pr.Cit-5 Services Pvt Ltd., Room No. 515, 5Th Teleperformance Tower, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Plot Cst No. 1406 Mk Road, A/28 Mindspace Mumbai – 400020. Goregaon West Mumbai– 400 064. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal.Ar Respondent By : Shri H.N Singh.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pr.Cit)-5 Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Shri H.N Singh.DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. 4. Further, Bombay High Court in the case of Gabreil India Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Born) held that this section ITA Nos. 976 & 977/Mum/2021 Teleperformance Global Services, Mumbai. does not visualise a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the ITO, who passed the order, unless the decision is held to be erroneous. Cases may be visualised where the ITO while making an assessment examines the accou…

Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia. Legal Heir of Hasmukhlal Patadia., Cuttack vs. ITO Ward-!(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/CTK/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.125/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Legal Heir Of Hasmukhlal Patadia, Nayabazar, Chauliaganj, Cuttack-753004 Pan No. :Adapp 6256 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Passed In Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026790827(1), Dated 19.03.2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. Head On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 784 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Dated 11.07.2022 Along With Affidavit Stating Therein That Due To Continuous Lockdown On Account Of Spread Of Covid-19, The Assessee Could Not File The Present Appeal In Time, Therefore, He Prayed That Delay Of 784 Days In Filing The Present Appeal May Kindly Be Condoned. On The Other Hand, Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object To The Above Submission Of The Ld. Ar. Considering The Above, We Condone

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…he submission that no specific reasons need to be recorded in the assessment order, if the claim as made by the assessee is found to be correct. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd., reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bom) to support his submissions that revision can be exercised by the Commissioner only if, on examination of the records of any proceedings under this Act, the Commissioner considers that any order passed therein by the ITO is ‘erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue’. The Commissioner cannot initiate the proceedings w…

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 122/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Mylan Pharmaceuticals Vs. Ito,Ward-16(3) Private Limited I.T.Towers, Ac Guards Plot No.564/A/22, Masab Tank Road No.92 Hyderabad-500 004 Jubillee Hills, Hyderabad Telangana-500 096

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya,CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…63 of the I.T.Act. He also relied on following decisions. i.MOIL Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [2017] 81 taxmann.com 420 (Bomb.HC) ii.Rajshanti Metals Pvt.Ltd. vs.PCIT reported in [2022] 176/RJT/2016 (Rajkot.Trib) iii.CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. reported in [1993] 203 ITR 108(Bob.HC) 7 ITA 122/Hyd/2022 12. The ld.DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the ld.PCIT. He submitted that when the AO has admittedly not called for the details of other advertisement and sales promotion expenses of Rs.57,75,196/-, therefore, the order has become erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The…

Jagu Dnyanu Deokate, Velaur vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward -2, Pandharpur

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 188/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Pune23 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17

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

…t. The Commissioner has no jurisdiction to set-aside the order of assessment to conduct another purposeless enquiry to reach the same result which was already arrived at earlier. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) observed and held that “in the garb of exercising power u/s.263, the Commissioner cannot initiate proceedings with a view to start phishing and roving enquiry 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 sta…

Cavinkare Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1603/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1603/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Cavinkare Private Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 12, Cavin Ville, Income Tax, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet Company Circle-I(3) Chennai-600 018. Chennai-600 034. Pan:Aaacb 3754B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R.Mohan Reddy, CITFor Respondent: 24.11.2022

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 35Section 36(1)(ii)

…assessment order, the PCIT cannot invoke provisions of section 263 of the Act and revise the assessment. For this, the learned counsel for the assessee relied on decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. Vs. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), wherein it is held as under:- “The ITO in this case had made enquiries in regard to the nature of the expenditure incurred by the assessee. The assessee had given detailed explanation in that regard by a letter in writing. All these are part of the record of the case. Evidently, the claim was allowed by the ITO on being satisfied with t…

Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd., Na

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

ITA 106/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

…ort his submission, ld. AR for the assessee relied upon following decisions:  CIT vs. Nirma Chemicals Works (P.) Ltd. 309 ITR 67 (Guj)  Rayon Silk Mills vs. CIT 221 ITR 155 (Guj)  Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT 263 ITR 437 (P&H)  CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom)  CIT vs. Vikas Polymears 341 ITR 537 (Del)  CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products 333 ITR 547 (Del) 9. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that if two views are possible, revision under section 263 is not justified as the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible view thus, the Assessing Officer is merely on different view could not ITA…

K. N. Diamond, Na

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

ITA 104/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

Keya Foods International Private Limited, Cherthala vs. ACIT, Circle, Alappuzha

In the result, appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 608/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Keya Foods International Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Pcit, Kp/111/212 Kuthlathode, Kochi. Thuravoor P. O., Cherthala Taluk, Alappuzha – 688 532. Pan : Aagca 5456 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. A. Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. M. Rajasekhar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…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…

Puthuvamana Ramani, Kochi vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi-1, Kochi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 574/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narayanan P Potty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajasekhar, CIT(DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 45Section 54ESection 54F

…of 9 details are not clearly brought out in the decision of the AO, it cannot be said that the order is erroneous unless any material contrary to this fact has been brought on record by the PCIT. 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…

Nadharsha Pulukuzhi Seethy, Ernakulam vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi-1, Kochi

ITA 570/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalnadharsha Pulukuzhi Seethy Principal Commissioner Pulukuzhi House, Bmc P.O Of Income Tax, Kochi-1 Vs. Thgrikkakara, Judge Mukku C.R. Building, Is Press Road Ernakulam 682021 Kochi 682018 Pan –Arzpp9171F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri A. Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajasekhar, CIT-DR

Section 263

…M. Rajasekhar vehemently argued that there is no detailed discussion in the assessment findings to this effect. We hold that there is no such precondition of a detailed discussion once the Assessing Officer examinesan issue as per CIT vs. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom). Learned PCIT’s revision directions in issue stand reversed therefore. 5. This assessee’s appealis allowed. Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 19th December, 2022. (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) Judicial Member Cochin, Dated: 19th December, 2022 Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT- 1, Kochi 4. The DR, ITAT, Cochin…

Vulvan Traders Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tex, Mumbai-5, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1318/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Principle Commissioner Of Vulvan Traders Private Income Tax, Limited 515, 5Th Floor, 805A, Corporate Avenue, Aaykar Bhavan, Sonawala Road, Vs. Goregaon (East) Mk Road, Mumbai-400 063 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacv1603K Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Achal Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM Principle Commissioner of Vulvan Traders Private Income Tax, Limited 515, 5th Floor, 805A, Corporate Avenue, Aaykar Bhavan, Sonawala Road, Vs. Goregaon (East) MK Road, Mumbai-400 063 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACV1603K Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, AR Revenue by : Shri Achal Sharma, CIT DR Date of hearing: 21.09.2022 Date of pronouncement : 19.12.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the revisionary order pass…

Kantharajapura Ramaiah Ananthababu, Mysuru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-3, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 491/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143Section 263

…e Act i.e., firstly, the Page 10 of 12 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…

Parimal Chandrakant Zaveri, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

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

ITA 283/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 263

…a view to start the fishing and roving enquiries in order which is already concluded and the same is not permitted as held by Hon Supreme Court in case of Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd., 106 ITR 1 and by the Bombay High court in case of Gabriel India Ltd, 203 ITR 108. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred in passing the order under section 263 merely been change of opinion. The order under section 143(3) passed by I.T.A No. 283/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 6 Parimal Chandrakant Zaveri vs. Pr.CIT the Ld. AO was not erroneous and neither prejudic…