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.

Wonder Laminates Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-5, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 316/KOL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 316/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Wonder Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-5, C/O. Subash Agrawal & Vs Kolkata Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata – 700069 [Pan : Aaacw2197D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/11/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16 /12/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 5, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 30/06/2020, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Though The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time Barred, However, In View Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Miscellaneous Application No. 665 Of 2021 In Smw(C) No. 3 Of 2020, The Period Of Filing Appeal During The Covid-19 Pandemic Is To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Counting The Limitation Period. In View Of This, The Appeal Is Treated As Filed Within The Limitation Period.

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT D/R

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…. In defense of his arguments, the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon a series of decisions as under:-  Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83  CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC)  J.L. Morrison 366 ITR 593 (Calcutta)  Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) 5. The ld. D/R relied on the order of the ld. Pr. CIT. 6. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The undisputed fact is that the issue was examined in the original assessment proceedings by calling for explanations from the assessee as well as from the investor parties which are available on record. W…

Diamines and Chemicals Limited, Baroda vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 219/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT/D.R. &

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…tiated by the Ld. PCIT. 2.4. In support of its claims the assessee also relied upon various case laws namely Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2002) 290 ITR 689 (Guj.), CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). I.T.A No. 1472/Ahd/2015 & 219/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 5 Diamines & Chemicals Ltd. vs. DCIT 2.5. The Ld. PCIT considered the above submissions of the assessee and held that the explanations submitted by the assessee is not acceptable since New Plant & Machinery acquired and install…

Diamines & Chemicals Ltd., Baroda vs. The Pr. CIT- 1, Baroda

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1472/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: PendingITAT Ahmedabad14 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT/D.R. &

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

Swaran Financial Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/KOL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

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

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘ए’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजपाल यादव,उपा"य"(कोलकाता "े") एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ)& Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member] I.T.A. No. 192/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Swaran Financial Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata (PAN: AAECS 4024 R) Appellant / (अपीलाथ!) Respondent / ("#यथ!) 03.11.2022 Date of Hearing / सुनवाई क& 'त(थ Date of Pronouncement / 14.12.2022 आदेश उ*घोषणा क& 'त(थ For the Appellant / Shri N. S. Saini, Advocate 'नधा/0रती क& ओर से For the Respondent / Shri Amol K…

Sanjay Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Thane vs. The Pr. Comm of Income Tax 1, Thane

In the result we allow the ground no

ITA 740/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalsanjay Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Sanjay Society Building, Uttam Naka, Bhayander, Thane-401106. Pan: Aacas3872P ...... Appellant Vs. Pcit-1, Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Dr. Ravindra Nagesh Naik, Ca Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Kailash Kanojia- Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 19061 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 17.03.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Pcit-1, Thane Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That All The Details/ Information Relating To Interest Income Were Submitted During The Scrutiny

For Appellant: Dr. Ravindra Nagesh Naik, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kailash Kanojia- CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sanjay Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Sanjay Society Building, Uttam Naka, Bhayander, Thane-401106. PAN: AACAS3872P ...... Appellant Vs. PCIT-1, Ashar I.T. Park, 6th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee by : Dr. Ravindra Nagesh Naik, CA Respondent/Revenue by : Sh. Kailash Kanojia- CIT-DR Date of hearing : 15/09/2022 Date of pronouncement : 13/12/2022 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed…

Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Private Limited, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-2, Surat

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

ITA 58/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.58/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pcit-2, A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Pandesara Surat. S.O., Pandesara, Surat-394221. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamcs4421L

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.58/SRT/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The PCIT-2, A-26, Central Park, GIDC, Pandesara Surat. S.O., Pandesara, Surat-394221. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAMCS4421L Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Respondent by Shri Asish Pophare, CIT-DR 09/12/2022 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 19/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: By way of this appeal, the assessee a…

Group M Media India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Comm. of Income Tax-1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1296/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhgroup M Media India Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax-1(3)(1), 7Th & 8Th Floor, A Wing, Room No. 330, 3 Rd Floor, The Orb, Jw Marriott Aayakar Bhavan, Sahar, Andheri (W), Churchage, Mumbai Mumbai – 400099 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccm7365H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nikhil Tiwari & M.P. Lohia Respondent By : Ashok Kumar Kardam

For Appellant: Nikhil Tiwari &For Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40Section 44A

…ITA No.1296/Mum/2022 A.Y.2016-17 1 Group M Media India Pvt. Ltd. VS. Pr.CIT-1(3)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Group M Media India Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Private Limited Income Tax-1(3)(1), 7th & 8th floor, A Wing, Room No. 330, 3 rd Floor, The ORB, JW Marriott Aayakar Bhavan, Sahar, Andheri (W), Churchage, Mumbai Mumbai – 400099 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AACCM7365H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Nikhil Tiwari & M.P. Lohia Respondent by : Ashok Kumar Kardam Date of Heari…

Marathwada Auto Cluster, Aurangabad vs. (Exemption), Pune

ITA 771/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.771/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Marathwada Auto Cluster, P-174, M.I.D.C., Waluj, Aurangabad-36 Pan : Aagcm3333D . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri S. N. Puranik Revenue By : Shri Naveen Gupta सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 13/10/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune [For Short “Cit(E)”] Dt. 31/03/2019 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Setting Aside The Order Of Assessment Order Dt. 29/12/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Passed By Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1, Aurangabad [For Short “Ao”].

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 25Section 263

…nterest of the revenue unless of course the Assessing Officer’s view is unsustainable in law. The very view stood reiterated in CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC), CIT v. Nahar Exports Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 494 (P&H), CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) Grasim Industries vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR, 92 (Bom). We keeping in mind all this settle legal preposition, to revert back to the twin issues (supra) raised in the Ld. CIT(E)’s 263 order under challenge. 7. Admittedly, the case of the appellant was selected for limited scrutiny, which after obtaining approval from the respective authority, c…

Mojilal Rajput, Shujalpur Mandi vs. ITO, Shajapur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 21/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Mehta & Shri ApurvaFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 80C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.20&21/Ind/2022 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Mojilal Rajput Vs. ITO C.A. Rajesh Mehta Shajapur (M.P.) Rajesh Heeralal Mehta & & Company, Chartered PCIT Accountants, 203, Manas Ujjain, (M.P.) Bhawan Extn. 11, RNT Marg, Indore-452001 PAN No.AJQPR6267F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Rajesh Mehta & Shri Apurva Mehta, A.Rs. Respondent by : Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 15.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement…

Mojilal Rajput, Sujalpur Mandi vs. The ITO, Shajapur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 20/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Mehta & Shri ApurvaFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 80C

Roop Singh Tanwar, Dewas vs. The CIT, Ujjain

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 52/IND/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Roop Singh Tanwar Pcit Dewas Ujjain बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Ajtpt 7633 E Assessee By Shri A.K. Mahajan, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2022

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 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…

Valli Agro Food Industries, Sattur vs. ITO, Ward 5, Virudhunagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 884/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.884/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S.Valli Agro Food Industries, V. The Pcit, 36, South Street, Madurai-1 Sattur-626 203. [Pan: Aaifv 9086 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Mr.M.Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, माननीय "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथा, माननीय लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.884/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s.Valli Agro Food Industries, v. The PCIT, 36, South Street, Madurai-1 Sattur-626 203. [PAN: AAIFV 9086 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by Mr.S.Chandrasekaran, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.M.Rajan, CIT सुनवाई क" तारीख…

M/S Arena Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-17

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 862/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Arena Enterprise V. Pcit –Mumbai-17 Cts No. 20, Arena Space, Village Majas Room No. 120, 1St Floor Jvlr, Behind Majas Depot Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai - 400060 G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aanfa3473E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Mrugakshi Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…f the AO was satisfied with the details and submissions filed before him, the order cannot be regarded to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Reliance was placed in this regard on the following cases:- (i). CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., 333 ITR 547 (Del) (ii). 7 ITA.Nos. 170 TO 173/PNJ/2014 (ASST. YEARS: 2006-07 & 2010-11) (iii). CIT vs. Anand Food Products, 39 taxmann.com 187 (AP) (iv). CIT vs. Amit Corporation, 21 taxmann.com 64 (Guj) (v). CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 (Del) (vi). CIT vs. MeshanaDist Co-op Milk Producers Un…

V.Natarajan, Rasipuram vs. ACIT Central Circle, Salem

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 468/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.467/Chny/2021 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.468/Chny/2021 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri V.Natarajan Acit बनाम/ 64C, Rotary Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. Rasipuram -637 408. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acgpn-1477-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (Ca)-Ld. Ar !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 15-11-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ():

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…ordance with binding judicial precedent. 6. At the same time, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Vikas Polymers (supra), observed that as regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993 203 ITR 108 (Bombay)], held with reference to Black's Law 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 with law. If…

V.Natarajan, Rasipuram vs. ACIT Central Circle, Salem

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 467/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

Mahim Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Society Ltd., Thane vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Thane

In the result we allow the ground no

ITA 1177/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Anil SatheFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash mane, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mahim Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Society Ltd. At –post, Mahim Road, Palghar-401402. PAN: AADAM8809M ...... Appellant Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ashar I.T. Park, “A” Wing, 6th Floor, Ambika Nagar, WIE, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Anil Sathe Respondent by : Sh. Prakash mane, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 07/09/2022 Date of pronouncement : 30/11/2022 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order o…

Bharat Malhotra (Prop M/S Shri Nathji Jewels), Karnal vs. Pr, CIT, Rohtak

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

ITA 826/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, CIT- DR

Section 133ASection 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 ". 26. 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)…

Kumar P. Gera, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central, Pune

ITA 704/PUN/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.704/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-2009 Shri Kumar P Gera 200, Gera Plaza, Boat Club Rd., Pune. . . . . . . . अऩीऱाथी / Appellant Pan : Aaypg8748B बिधम / V/S. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central, Pune - 411037 द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri S. K. Tyagi & R. S. Soniminde Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 06/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2008-09 Is Assailed Against The Revisionary Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Pune [For Short “Pcit”] Dt. 20/03/2018 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Stemmed Out Of Order Dropping Penalty [For Short “Po”] Dt. 29/04/2016 Passed By The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Pune [For Short “Ao”] U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tyagi & R. S. SonimindeFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani

Section 132Section 143Section 263Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…visionary jurisdiction. ITAT-Pune Page 6 of 9 Shri Kumar P Gera ITA No.704/PUN/2018 AY: 2008-2009 8. In this context it is apt to quote that, Hon’ble Bombay High Court while adjudicating the similar issue in the case of “CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd” reported at 203 ITR 108, referring to the ration laid down by Hon’ble Justice Raghuveer in “Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd Vs ITO”, tumbledown the revisionary action in para 10 thereof which reads as; “10. As observed in Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. ITO by Raghuveer J. (as his Lordship then was), the Department cannot be permitted to begin fresh litigation because of new views th…

Shri Prashant Agrawal, Bhopal vs. Pr. CIT -I, Bhopal

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 561/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. DFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mitra, CIT.D.R

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 561/Ind/2019 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Prashant Agrawal Vs. Pr. CIT - 1 E-1/168, Arera Colony, Bhopal (M.P.) Bhopal (M.P.) 462016 PAN No. AATPA4605N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. D. Patwa, A.Rs. Respondent by : Shri P. K. Mitra, CIT.D.R. 15.09.2022 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 24.11.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the or…

M/S La Opala RG Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 296/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. La Opala Rg Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Eco Centre Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Vs 8Th Floor Em-4, Sector-5 Kolkata - 700091 [Pan : Aaacl5569J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata -2 (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 29/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Is That The Assessee Is A Limited Company & Income Of Rs.52,63,83,260/- Declared In The E-Return Furnished On 31/10/2017 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act Was Completed On 21/12/2019 Assessing Income At Rs.56,22,70,863/-. Thereafter, The Ld. Pr. Cit Called For The Assessment Record & After Going Through The Same It Was Observed That The Order Of The Assessment Was Erroneous Insofar As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue On The Following Grounds:- “Upon Examination Of Case Records, It Is Observed That The Assessee Had An Income Of Rs. 49,08, 14,480/- From Sitaganj Exempted Unit In Which The Assessee Had Claimed Deduction U/S. 80Ic Of The Act Of Rs. 14,72,44,452/- (30% Of Rs.49,08, 14,480/-). It Was Observed From The Profit & Loss Accounts Of The Assessee For The Year Ended 31.03.2017 That The Assessee Had Credited An Amount Of Rs. 2,43,75, 193/- From Export Incentives & Also

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

…nder the facts and circumstances of the case. This position is further supported by the following judicial pronouncements; - CITVs. Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 (Del HC); - CIT Vs. Developement Credit Bank Ltd. 323 ITR 206 (2010); - CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (1993); ITA No. 559/Kol/2018 La Opala RG Ltd.., AY- 2013-14 - CIT Vs. Vikash Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Del); 8. In this regard, the ld AR also placed 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 quashed t…