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.

R V Deshpande HUF, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 340/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 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 Commission…

Shiv Shakti Ginning and Pressing Pvt. Ltd, Adipur Kutch vs. The PCIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 102/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 102/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 M/S Shiv Shakti Ginning & Pressing The Principal Commissioner Private Limited, Vs. Of Income Tax, Plot No.1, Ward No.1/B, Rajkot-1, Opp. Aum Mandir, Rajkot. Industrial Area, Adipur-370205 (Gujarat)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev jain, CIT. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…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. 102/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 M/s Shiv Shakti Ginning and Pressing The Principal Commissioner Private Limited, Vs. of Income Tax, Plot No.1, Ward No.1/B, Rajkot-1, Opp. AUM Mandir, Rajkot. Industrial Area, Adipur-370205 (Gujarat) PAN: AALCS2989L Assessee by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R Revenue by : Shri Sanjeev jain, CIT. D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 29/06/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Dat…

Vinay Infratech Pvt Ltd, Rajkot vs. The PCIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 101/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 101/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 M/S Vinay Infratech Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of 110-112, Silver Chamber, Vs. Income Tax, Tagore Road, Rajkot-1, Rajkot. Rajkot.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट "ायपीठ 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. 101/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 M/s Vinay Infratech Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner of 110-112, Silver Chamber, Vs. Income Tax, Tagore Road, Rajkot-1, Rajkot. Rajkot. PAN: AADCV4950C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R Revenue by : Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT.D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/07/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 07/09/2022 आदेश/O R…

Pr. CIT Circle-2, Mumbai vs. Bharat Prtroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1601/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1601/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Bharat Petroleum बिधम/ Pcit, Circle-2 Corporation Ltd. Room No.344, Aayakar Vs. Taxation Section, Bhavan, M. K. Road, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan 1, Mumbai-400020. 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb2902M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-02 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 21.02.2020 For Assessment Year [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”] 2016-17 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”].

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. MistryFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 32A

…ision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Reliance Communication Ltd. (244 Taxman 55) (SC) and also decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs. Reliance Communication Ltd (396 ITR 217) (Bom) and CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) (Bom). 5. Per contra, the Ld. CIT-DR opposed the submission of the Ld. Sr. Counsel and has submitted that, the AO has merely called for the calculation in respect of deduction claimed u/s 32AC and that he did not examine in the first place, as to whether the assessee is eligible for deduction or not. He pointed out that, pursuant to the query f…

M/S. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

ITA 248/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

…the Act, the twin conditions regarding “erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue” are to be satisfied:- (i) PCIT vs Bangia Gramin Vikash Bank – Calcutta HC – IA No.GA/1 & 2/2018 – Date of order – 23.11.2021 (ii) CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd – 1993 203 ITR 108 Bom (iii) CIT vs Nirav Modi – Bombay HC in ITA Nos.117 & 119 of 2014 – Date of judgement – 16-6-2016 (iv) Spectra Shares & Scripts Pvt. Ltd 354 ITR 35 (Andhra Pradesh)(2013) (v) CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (vi) PCIT vs Brahma Centre Development Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi HC in ITA No.116/2021 – Date of order – 5.7.2021 2.33 The a…

M/S. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bengaluru

ITA 415/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

Vimala Devi A. Kanunga, Hubli vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 308/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 Ms. Vimala Devi A. Kanunga, Pcit, Vs. M/S. Jainam Syndicate, Hubli. Near Shankar Math, Kanchagargalli, Hubli – 580 028. Pan : Amupk 3079 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 68

…nquiry. In a case where enquiry is directed to be made by the PCIT, he must give a finding as to how the enquiry made by the AO was wrong. In this regard, the law has been stated by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Pvt. Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bombay). In the present case, the enquiry made by the AO was proper and the AO has drawn proper conclusions on material available before her. The view taken by the AO was a possible view rather a very pragmatic view. The PCIT may not agree with that view. However, the powers under section 263 of the Act cannot be exercised to substitute the view…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 5 vs. M/S Trimex Fiscal Services Pvt Ltd

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the order

ITAT/56/2021HC Calcutta25 Aug 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

…s profitable and how the business should be carried out. The commercial expediency has to be seen from the view point of the businessmen. Even under Rule 11 UA(2), though power has been 4 (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 5 (2014) 366 ITR 593 (Cal) 6 (2022) 135 taxmann.com 55 (Bom) 7 (2021) 130 taxmann.com 294 (SC) 8 (2019) 111 taxmann.com 287 (SC) ITAT NO. 56 OF 2021 Page 10 of 25 given to the assessing officer to substitute his own value in the place of the value determined, it would require recording of by the assessing officer to tinker wi…

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Holdings Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 263

…sdiction u/s 263. Jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be invoked for making short enquiries or to go into the process of assessment again and again merely on the basis that more enquiry ought to have been conducted to find something. 13.3 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 suomotu 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…

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Food Industries Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Incometax-1, Jaipur

ITA 191/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us On The Following Grounds In This Appeal;

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…r making short enquiries or to go into the process of assessment again and again merely on the basis that more enquiry ought to have been conducted to find something. 23 Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Food Industries Pvt. Ltd., 12.3 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 suomotu 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…

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 190/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 263

M/S. Karthik Estate, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 143Section 143(2)Section 153DSection 263

Balvinder Singh, Haryana vs. Pr, CIT, Rohtak

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

ITA 570/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…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 ". 15. 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)…

Ajay Garg, Bulandshahr vs. ITO, Bulandshahr

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

ITA 691/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ajay Garg Vs. Pr. Cit Prop. Abhay Trading Ghaziabad Company, Anupshahr Nayi Mandi, Bullandshahr- 203001 Pan No.Abfpg1600G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 263Section 263(1)

…en 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 ". 11. 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)…

Abhushan Jewellerys (India ) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -4, Mumbai

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

ITA 793/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

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

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) I.T.A. No. 793/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. PCIT-4 Abhushan Jewellery (India) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 629 Office No.4, 2nd Floor 6th Floor Building No. 74A, Sheikh Aayakar Bhavan Memon Street, Zaveri M.K. Road Bazaar, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400 020. PAN : MUMM18849F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Devendra Jain Department by Smt. Shailja Rai Date of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 12.08.2022 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated…

M/S. Infinity Transport Soluation P. Ltd. Rajkot, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 137/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 137/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 M/S. Infinity Transoft Solution The Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax-1, Infinity House P-9, Rajkot. Vishwakarma Society, Near Vavdi Water Tank, 150 Feet Ring Road, Rajkot-360004. Pan: Aadc15680G

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT.D.R

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट "ायपीठ 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. 137/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 M/s. Infinity Transoft Solution The Principal Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax-1, Infinity House P-9, Rajkot. Vishwakarma Society, Near Vavdi Water Tank, 150 Feet Ring Road, Rajkot-360004. PAN: AADC15680G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R Revenue by : Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT.D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 01/07/2022 घो…

Rishi Kiran Logistics Private Limited, Kachchh vs. The PCIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 136/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 136/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 M/S. Rishi Kiran Logistics Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of Plot No.8, Vs. Income Tax, Opp. Post Office, Rajkot-1, Gandhidham, Rajkot. Kutch-370201. Pan: Aadcr4880P

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT.D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट "ायपीठ 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. 136/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 M/s. Rishi Kiran Logistics Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner of Plot No.8, Vs. Income Tax, Opp. Post Office, Rajkot-1, Gandhidham, Rajkot. Kutch-370201. PAN: AADCR4880P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R Revenue by : Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT.D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 01/07/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 10/0…

The Mysore Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-27, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 730/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Mysore Co-Op Vs. Pr.Cit-27, Housing Society Ltd, Room No -401, 4 Th Gateno2, Mysore Colony, Floor, Tower-6, Vashi Near Rcf Factory, Railway Station Anik,Off Majul Road, Commercial Complex, Chembur, Vashi,Navi Mumbai- Mumbai-400074 400073. Pan/Gir No. : Aacft7837N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.M.Subramanian.& Ms.Varsha Nanwani.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Ajay. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit), Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 17.03.2021. Mysore Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. Mumbai. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assesse Is A Cooperative Housing Society & Derives Income House Property & Interest From Bank & Provides Credit Facilities To Its Members. The Assessee Has Filed The Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 Electronically On 26.10.2015 Disclosing A Total Income Of Rs.43,08,320/- After Claiming Deduction U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act Of Rs.85,80,391/-In Respect Of Interest Income Received On Deposits With Co-Op Banks. The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass For Verification Of (I)Income From Heads Of Income Other Than Business/Profession Mismatch(Ii)Sales Turnover Mismatch & (Iii) Deduction Under Chapter Vi-A. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Issued Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Along With The Questionnaire. In Compliance, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Appeared From Time To Time, Produced The Books Of Accounts & Submitted The Relevant Details & Documents & The Case Was Discussed.

For Appellant: Mr.M.Subramanian.&For Respondent: Mr. Ajay. CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

…ind and verified the facts. The Ld. AR referred to the submissions, Mysore Co-op Housing Society Ltd. Mumbai. financial statements and explanations filed before the Assessing Officer. 10. We find the Hon’ble High Court of 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 enquiries in regard to nature of said expenditure and considering exp…

Juniper Networks International B.V., Mumbai vs. CIT (International Taxation)-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 982/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 982/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2014-15) Juniper Networks International B.V, Boeing Avenue 240, 1119Pz Schipol-Rijk, Amsterdam,0 Netherlands Pan: Aadcj-0974-G ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It), Mumbai -3, Room No.1601, 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. Advocate With Ms. Prachi Mehta &Shri Sandeep Bhalla ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Surabhi Sharma & Shri Milind Chavan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Prachi Mehta &Shri Sandeep BhallaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma &

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

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण मुंबईपीठ“आइ” "ी"वकासअव"थी, "या"यकसद"यएवं "ीएमबालगणेश, लेखाकारसद"यकेसम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं. 982/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2014-15) Juniper Networks International B.V, Boeing Avenue 240, 1119pz Schipol-Rijk, Amsterdam,0 Netherlands PAN: AADCJ-0974-G ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (IT), Mumbai -3, Room No.1601, 16th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant by : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. A…

Mahalaxmi Kundan Meena Diamond Jewellers P Ltd, Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jaipur

ITA 119/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Avdesh Kumar (CIT)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…Corpn Vs. DCIT (1996) 56 ITD 345 (Bom.) The Commissioner did not come to a positive finding that the claim of the assessee was erroneous. He simply asked the Assessing Officer to re-examine the matter. This was not possible. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) 8. Ratio of case laws quoted by the Learned CIT are not applicable in the case of the assessee – 15 Mahalaxmi Kundan Meena Diamond Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. The Learned CIT has cited the following case in support of his action u/s 263. The ratio of these case is not applicable to the facts of the case as is shown in the column in the table bel…