CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.

Aadi Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT -14, Mumbai

In the result, we set aside the order of the CIT dated

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aadi Industries Limited V. Pr.Cit – 14 421, 4Th Floor Room No. 426, 4Th Floor Kailash Plaza, Vallabh Baug Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Near R-Odeon Mall, Ghatkopar(E) Mumbai - 400075 Pan: Aaacj8256G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Mandar Vaidya Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

…nd questioned the applicability of section 50C on leased property in the SCN, he, therefore transgressed into the judicial territory, which he cannot. 27. We are aware of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabrial India Ltd., reported in 203 ITR 108, wherein, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held, “CIT cannot revise order merely because he disagrees with the conclusion arrived at by the ITO”. We are also aware of the case of CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd., reported in 227 CTR 133, wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court drew a distinction between “Lack of inquiry” and “inadequate enquiry” and held that…

Trafigura India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-6, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaletrafigura India Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit-6 Unit No. 1101, A-Wing, 501, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Plot No. C, 66G Block, Bhavan, Mg Road, Bkc, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadct3128N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agrawal.Ar Respondent By : Shri H. N. Singh. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2022 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)-6, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

…is no verification and enquiry conducted by the A.O. Whereas the A.O has applied his mind and verified the facts. The Ld. AR referred to the submissions and explanations filed before the A.O. We find the Hon’ble High Court Bombay in CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd.203 ITR 108.(Bom) has observed as under: Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - Assessment year 1973-74 - Assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 99,326 described 'as plant relay out expenses' as revenue expenditure and ITO, after making Trafigura India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. enquiries in regard to nature of sa…

M/S Metro Development, Mumbai vs. PCIT -27, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

…of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd reported in 243 ITR 83 ; decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nirav Modi reported in 390 ITR 292; and the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case Garbriel India Ltd., reported in 203 ITR 108. In our considered opinion, the ld. PCIT is only trying to disturb the possible view taken by 7 M/s.Metro Development the ld. AO by merely making a bald allegation that no enquiries were carried out by the ld. AO. All the aforesaid facts clearly go to establish that adequate enquiries were indeed carried out by the ld. AO. 7. Moreover, we find…

Infiniti Retail Ltd, Mumbai vs. Chief CIT (OSD) (I/C. Pr. CIT - 2 ), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Infiniti Retail Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Unit No.701 & 702, 7th Floor Income Tax-2(2)(1) Room No.545, 5th Floor Kaledonia, Sahar Road Andheri (E) Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400 069 M.K.Road, Mumbai -400020 PAN/GIR No.AACCV1726H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue by Shri K.C.Selvamani Date of Hearing 17/10/2022 Date of Pronouncement 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.3685/Mum/2019 for A.Y.2013…

Bhaskar Arvind Kumar Hingad, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT-24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.692/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Bhaskar Arvind Kumar बिधम/ Acit-24(1) Hingad 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Flat No. 1, Ratnakar Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Building, 26 Narayan Mumbai-400012. Dhabolkar Road, Mumbai- 400006. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacph2812F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2014- 15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

…quiry" and when can it be termed as erroneous for usurpation of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. For better understanding of this aspect, we can take help of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd (203 ITR 108) wherein it was held as follows: “11. 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 ITO 16 A.Y. 2014-15 Bhaskar Arvind Kumar Hingad acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply b…

Biswajit Bose, New Panvel vs. Pr CIT -1, Thane

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and order of Ld

Bench: Shree Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalbiswajit Bose B103, Balaji Niwas, Plot No-107-108, Sector-8, New Panvel, Panvel-410206 Pan No. Acxpb9332K ....Appellant Pr Cit-1 Thane Room No-7, 6The Floor, B Wing, Ashar It Park, Wagale Industrial Estate, Thane West, Mumbai-400604 ...Respondent

…In this regard, the Appellant submits that when the AO has taken one of the possible views, jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act cannot be exercised to substitute the view of the AO with that of the Commissioner's. 14. In CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), it was held that Section 263 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 accounts, makes enquiries, applies his mind to the facts and circ…