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 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 143(2)Section 148Section 1961

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquirymalabar industrialsection 263(1)lack of enquiryprejudicial to interest of revenuerevision u/s 263revision under section 263assessment order erroneouserroneous and prejudicialsection 263section 26non-application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.

Smt. Indermeet Bains W/O Sh. D.S. Bains, Bathinda vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the term indicated as above

ITA 250/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal & Sh. P.N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amlendu Nath Misra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…e Department about the status of the land sold and, therefore, the AO has taken a conscious decision, that the land was agriculture land. The Ld. Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India reported in (1993) 203 ITR 108 for the preposition that, merely because the assessment order in question is not a detailed order and the Assessing Officer has not mentioned item-wise finding, regarding the claim of the assessee, that itself, does not mean that the Assessing Officer had not made enquiries in this respect. The Ld. Counsel also relied upon the judgment in the c…

Smt. Sangeeta Ganpati Jadhav, Pune vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 123/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 123/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Smt. Sangeeta Ganpati Jadhav D-406, Neha Co-Op. Society, Sus, Pune-411045. . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan : Aefpj8933A बनाम / V/S. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Pune. द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Dhananjay Barve Revenue By : Shri Sardar Singh Meena. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Agitated Against The Order Of Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Pr-Cit-2), Pune [For Short “Ccit”] Dt. 17/02/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Dove Out Of The Order Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) By Asstt. Cit, Circle-4 Pune [For Short “Ao”] Vide Order Dt. 21/12/2017, For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2015-16. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 17

For Appellant: Shri Dhananjay BarveFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…2015-16 fulfilment of twin conditions pre-requisite for assumption of revisionary jurisdiction. 16. 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…

Hindustan Sales Industrial Corporation, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 94/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…t order passed by the AO was erroneous, the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act are not valid as held by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Trustees Anupam Charitable Trust (1987) 167 ITR 129 (Raj.), CIT vs. Godawari Sugar Mills Ltd. (1993), 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) and CIT vs. Shakti Charities (2000) 160 CTR 107 (Mad.). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Green World Corporation (2009) 314 ITR 81 held that the jurisdiction u/s 263 can be exercised only when both the conditions are satisfied. First order of the AO should be erroneous and second it should be prejudicial to the interest…

Sachchade Food Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 89/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 89/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 Sachchade Food Private Limited, P.C.I.T., 407/3, New Ahmedabad Industrial Vs. Ahmedabad-3, Estate, Ahmedabad. Village: Moraiya Tal. Sanand, Ahmedabad-382213. Pan: Aatcs9292G

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ssessment 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’.” 11.3 In Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner (page 113) “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…

Castamet Works Private Limited, Kharwa vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur

ITA 187/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’B’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM deys’k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 187/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2017-18 cuke Castamet Works Private Limited Principle Commissioner of Vs. Village – Kharwa,Tehsil- Masuda Income Tax, Udaipur Kharwa, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AADCC 5624 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Prakul Khurana (A…

M/S. Emboza Granito Pvt. Ltd., Morbi vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 240/RJT/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 240/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2016-2017

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT. D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 68

…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’.” 9.3 In Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner (page 113) “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…

M/S. Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore - 4, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 397/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16
For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/s. Karnataka State Beverages Corporation The Principal Ltd., Commissioner of 4th Floor, TTMC Income Tax, Building, “A” Block, Bangalore – 4, BMTC , Shanthinagar, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560 027. PAN: AACCK1421A APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri Narendra Sharma, Assessee by Advocate Revenue by : Smt. S. Praveena, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed…

Nepal Singh Rathod (HUF), Hubli vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 400/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…t of SBN received post demonetization and proper enquiries ought to have been made by the AO which is clearly a difference of opinion which cannot be a reason for revision u/s. 263 of the Act. 19. 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 Nepal Singh Rathod (HUF), Hubli Page 32 of 33 officer acting in accordance with the law makes a certain assessment, the same ca…

Haris Kalandan Mohammed, Mangaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on merits

ITA 435/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Haris Kalandan Mohammed, The Principal D.No. 23-10-810, Commissioner Of Umay Bagh, Income Tax 1St Cross, [Central], Yemmekere, Vs. Bengaluru. Mangaluru – 575 001. Pan: Abjph9234P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 22/03/2022 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit U/S. 263 For A.Y. 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central], Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 22/03/2022, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Law & On Facts To Set Aside The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 263Section 68

…rt 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 the 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 pre…

M/S. Janatha Fish Meal & Oil Products, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bengaluru

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

ITA 489/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms.Padmavathy S.M/S. Janatha Fish Meal & Vs Pcit, Central Oil Products C.R. Building D.No. 1-4(9), Manur Fisheries Queen'S Road Road, Kota, Post Kota Bengaluru 560001 Udupi 0576221 Pan – Aaefj1257G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, Advocte Revenue By: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Appeal Is Against The Revision Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 28.03.2022 Passed For Ay 2018-19 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Pcit) Bangalore.

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocteFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 153DSection 263Section 269Section 269SSection 69C

…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 explainedas 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 8 M/s. Janatha Fish Meal & Oil Products…

Hariyappa Kotian, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 430/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)
Section 139Section 143Section 153DSection 263

…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 Commissione…

Shri Kuldipsinh Bhikhubha Basiya, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 153/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 153/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 Shri Kuldipsinh Bhikhubha Basiya, The Principal Commissioner Office No. 330, Vs. Of Income Tax, Star Plaza, Rajkot-1, Nr. Circuit House, Rajkot. Phulchhab Chowk, Rajkot.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154Section 234ASection 263Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, And SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 153/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 Shri Kuldipsinh Bhikhubha Basiya, The Principal Commissioner Office No. 330, Vs. of Income Tax, Star Plaza, Rajkot-1, Nr. Circuit House, Rajkot. Phulchhab Chowk, Rajkot. PAN: ACBPB3675M Assessee by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R Revenue by : Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT. D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08/07/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 16/09/2022…

Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

ITA 126/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Prathviraj Meena (CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 6(3)(ii)

…ere suspicion and substitution of opinion. Moreover, once all the details were made available before the CIT, he should not have decided the issues instead of setting aside to the AO. We draw strength from the decision in the case of 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 Incom…

Leela Gupta, Jalandhar vs. Principal Comissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing I

ITA 75/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

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

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

…if it is shown 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 o…

The Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. Rajkot, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 65/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 65/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. The Principal Commissioner Of Sanghavi & Co. Vs. Income Tax, Chartered Accountants, Range-1, “Prasham”, 4Th Floor, Rajkot. Near Bilkha Plaza, Kasturba Road, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Aaaar2912F

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, And SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 65/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. The Principal Commissioner of Sanghavi & Co. Vs. Income Tax, Chartered Accountants, Range-1, “Prasham”, 4th Floor, Rajkot. Near Bilkha Plaza, Kasturba Road, Rajkot-360001. PAN: AAAAR2912F Assessee by : Shri Gaurang Sanghvi, A.R Revenue by : Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT. D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/07/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख…

M/S Anu Cashews, Kollam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kollam

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

ITA 700/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 The Assistant M/S. Anu Cashews, Commissioner Of Parameswar Nagar, Income Tax, Kollam. Circle – 1, Pan: Aadfa7642K Vs. Kollam. Appellant Respondent : Shri G. Surendranath Rao, Assessee By Ca : Smt J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. Revenue By Ar Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 10/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Pcit, Thiruvananthapuram U/S. 263 Of The Act On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Against Law & Facts. 2. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Concluding That The Ao Had Completed The Assessment Without Verification & Application Of Mind. During The Original Assessment Proceedings The Ao Had Sought All Information On The Deduction Claimed Under Chapter Via. He Had Issued A Notice U/S 142(1) Dated 23.05.2017, In Which Inter Alia He Had Called For Reconciliation Of The Large Deduction Claimed U/S 80(Ia) With The Books Of Account

For Respondent: Shri G. Surendranath Rao
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…ing decisions wherein it is held that when there is a verification carried on by the assessing officer during the original assessment proceedings, it cannot be held that there is a non application of mind by the Ld.AO.  CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bombay)  CIT vs. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. reported in 366 ITR 593 (Calcutta High Court)  NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT-V 45 reported in 392 ITR 426 (Del HC)  CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1 (Del HC) 6. Assessee has also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of CIT vs. Accel Transmatic Systems Ltd. r…

Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (Kiit), Patia vs. CIT (Exemp.) Hyderabad, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 48/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Cit (Exemptions), Technology (Kiit), Plot No.383, Technology (Kiit), Plot No.383, Hyderabad 384, 384, Kiit Kiit Campus Campus-1, Patia, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaatk 3103 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ar S.K.Agarwalla, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13 /9 9/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/9 9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Ag This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Ainst The Order Of The Ld Cit(E), Hyderabad Hyderabad Passed U/S.263 Of The Act Dated Dated 14.3.2022 In Appeal No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021 Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1040690424(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri S.K.Agarwala, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Agarwala, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Agarwala, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 10Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…d not 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. (203 ITR 108) (Bombay High Court) law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner (page 113): The decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs. D. G. Housing Project Ltd. (343 ITR 329) is applicable where some enquiry has been made by the A.O. but not in a case, where no enquiry was made by him. It was held in para-16 as under: "16. Thus,…

M/S Embassy Brindavan Developers vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeal is allowed

ITA/713/2017HC Karnataka13 Sept 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 260Section 263

…and another Vs. M/s. Cyber Park Development and Construction Ltd.2, Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. JCIT, Nasik3 and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT4. 1 [1993]71 Taxman 585 (Bombay) (para11) = (1993)203 ITR 108 2 ITA No.115/2012 decided on 05.10.2020 3 [2015]55 taxmann.com 361 (SC) 4 [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC) - 6 - ITA No. 713 of 2017 6. Opposing the appeal, Shri. M. Dilip for the Revenue also placed reliance on para 10 of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., and submitted that assessee's Firm was constituted to deve…

M/S Premji Valji & Sons, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 125/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 125/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 M/S Premji Valji & Sons, The Principal Commissioner Of “Kuvarjibhai Tower”, Vs. Income Tax, Palace Road, Rajkot-1, Rajkot. Rajkot. Pan: Aacfp7696K

For Appellant: Shri R.D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269S

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (CONDUCTED THROUGH E- COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, And SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 125/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 M/s Premji Valji & Sons, The Principal Commissioner of “Kuvarjibhai Tower”, Vs. Income Tax, Palace Road, Rajkot-1, Rajkot. Rajkot. PAN: AACFP7696K Assessee by : Shri R.D. Lalchandani, A.R Revenue by : Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT. D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04/07/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 09/09/…

Rajshanti Metals Pvt. Ltd., Jamnagar vs. The Pr. Commr. of Income Tax, Jamnagar

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

ITA 176/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 176/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 Rajshanti Metals Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of B-42, Gidc, Vs. Income Tax, Shankar Tekri, Jamnagar. Jamnagar.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.R
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 80

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, And SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 176/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 Rajshanti Metals Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner of B-42, GIDC, Vs. Income Tax, Shankar Tekri, Jamnagar. Jamnagar. PAN: AABCR0211Q Assessee by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R Revenue by : Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 30/06/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 09/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER BENCH: The captioned appeal…