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 367,154 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.

Britannia Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 177/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Britannia Industries Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of 5/1A, Hungerford Street, Income-Tax Vs. Shakespeare Sarani, Circle-1 Kolkata-700 017 Kolkata (Pan: Aabcb2066P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca Respondent By : Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Revisionary Order Of Ld. Pr. Cit, Kolkata-1 Vide Order No. Itba/Rev5/2021- 22/1040498620(1) Dated 09.03.2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 U/S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sudipta Guha, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35Section 35(1)

…) of the Act. Ld. PCIT and the ld. CIT, DR could not bring any material on record to controvert this verifiable factual position. For the above finding of ours, we find force from the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom) wherein it is observed as under (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-tax Officer is 'erroneou…

India Power Corporation Limited, Kolkata vs. PCIT, -I, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 632/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115JSection 263Section 80I

…A of the Act. Ld. PCIT and the ld. CIT, DR could not bring any material on record to controvert this verifiable factual position. For the above finding of ours, we find force from the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom) wherein it is observed as under (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-tax Officer is 'erroneo…

M/S. Perth Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., Morbi vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 191/RJT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 191/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2015-2016 M/S. Perth Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of At. Unchi Mandal, Vs. Income Tax-3, Opp. 66 Kva Sub Station, Rajkot. Morbi-363641. Pan: Aahcp6296P

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 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’.” 11. 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. Haris Marine Products, Mangaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 383/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)

Section 143Section 153DSection 263

…of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law ………" 23. The ld. AR also relied on the following decisions:- Page 15 of 23 • CIT Vs. M/s. Sun Beam Auto Limited, reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del) • CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bom) • CIT v. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC) • Sri Ashish Prasanna Kumar Jain, ITA No.466/Bang/2020 dated 19.9.2022. 24. The ld. AR has placed reliance on the judgments of the various High Courts on the issue. 25. On the other hand, the ld DR submitted that the statement recorded u/s.132(4) is a conclusive evidence and that the AO failed to b…

Shree Tuljabhavani Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -5, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 254/PUN/2020[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.254/Pun/2020 िनधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Tuljabhavani Nagari The Principal Commissioner Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Vs Of Income Tax - 5, Pune. 17/04, 103, Shri Tuljibhavani Plaza Mangalnagar, Wakad Road, Thergaon, Pune. Pan: Aadas 9902 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 16/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income-Tax-5, Pune’S, Order Dated 08.01.2019For The Assessment Year 2014-15, Involving Proceedings Under Section 263(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Passing The Order Which Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Same May Please Be Cancelled. 2. Pr.Cit Has Erred In Alleging That Order U/S 143(3) Passed By Assessing Officer Is Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. Appellant Prays To Cancel The Same.

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.254/PUN/2020 िनधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Tuljabhavani Nagari The Principal Commissioner Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Vs of Income Tax - 5, Pune. 17/04, 103, Shri Tuljibhavani Plaza Mangalnagar, Wakad Road, Thergaon, Pune. PAN: AADAS 9902 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee by None. Revenue by Shri Arvind Desai – DR Date of hearing 16/06/2022 Date of pronouncement 28/07/2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER…

Sadhu Salian, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 457/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)

Section 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 Commission…

Om Sai Co-Operative Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Gadag vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 454/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George CIT(OSD)

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

…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 officer acting in accordance with the law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by Page 14 of 15…

M/S Rithwik Rk Joint Venture vs. Pr. CIT, Allahabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 99/ALLD/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad26 Jul 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Chakrapani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma, CIT DR

Section 263

…should have made further enquiries rather than accepting the explanation. The learned AR has also relied upon the following decisions:- 1. CIT vs. Amit Corporation 21.taxmann.com 64 2. CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto Limited 332 ITR 167 3. CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited 203 ITR 108 4. CIT vs. Vikas Polymers 194 taxman 57 5. CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Ltd.203 ITR 255 6. Sarvana Developers vs. CIT in ITA No. 620/Bang./2011 7. Malbar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT2 43 ITR 83 8. CIT vs. Max India Limited 295 ITR 282 9. CIT vs. D.G. Gopala Gowda 254 ITR 501 10. Linde AD, Linde Engineering Division VWP No.3917/2012 vs.…

M/S. Rithwik Rk Joint Venture, Hyderabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 107/ALLD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Chakrapani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma, CIT DR

Section 263

Privilege Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 14, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 3317/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax– M/S Privilege Industries Ltd. 14 3Rd Floor, Dheeraj Arma, Anant Room No. 415, Vs. Kanekar Marg, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs6532N

For Appellant: Mr. Nimesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…ere is no error in assessment order. g. With respect to the jurisdiction invoked by the learned PCIT for revising the order is not in accordance with law. He relied upon the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT versus Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108, coordinate bench in case of Narayan Tatu Rane 70 taxmann.com 227, honourable Supreme Court in case of CIT prints private limited hundred and 30 taxmann.com 294 wherein it has been held that the revision powers cannot be exercised for directing a full enquiry to merely find out if the earlier view taken is erroneous particularly when a view is al…

Shri Rahul Dharmendra Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-5, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 75/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 75/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Rahul Dharmendra Shah, The Principal Commissioner 14, Chandra Prakash Society, Vs. Of Income Tax-5, Vibhag-2, Kankariya, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380022. Pan: Cqjps5772C

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ A’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 75/AHD/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Rahul Dharmendra Shah, The Principal Commissioner 14, Chandra Prakash Society, Vs. of Income Tax-5, Vibhag-2, Kankariya, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380022. PAN: CQJPS5772C And आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 72/AHD/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Shri Dharmendra Champaklal The Principal Commissioner Shah, Vs. of Income Tax-5, 14, Chandra Prakash Society, Ahmedabad. Vibhag-…

Shri Dharmendra Champaklal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT-5, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 72/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

Sh Pravinchandra Walchand Shah, Nashik vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax -1, Nashik

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 296/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.296/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Pravinchandra Walchand The Pr.Cit, Nashik-1. Shah, Vs 19, Sumati Society, Sharanpur . Road, Shastri Nagar, Nashik – 422002. Pan: Acmps 2997L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena – Ar Date Of Hearing 14/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nashik-1’S Order Dated 12.03.2021 Passed In Case No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2020- 21/1031448193(1), In Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

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

…ported by following decisions: 1. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs.M/s DLF Ltd 236/2010 7 384/2020 2. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd 295 ITR 282 (SC) The assesee also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs.Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and stated that in view of the facts of the case and ratio laid down by various decisions, the proposed revision u/s 263 is not justified. 5. In view of the above, submission/clarification on the part of the assessee and on the issues cropped-up during the course of present proceedings are duly discussed in the above paras and were duly co…

Cricket Club of India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3282/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Us:-

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

…e ld. PCIT in the section 263 proceedings, merely because the ld. PCIT is of a different view on the same set of facts. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bom) which has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co Ltd vs. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83 (SC). 11. Ld. PCIT has directed the conduct of a roving and fishing inquiry which is not permissible in law: The Ld. PCIT issued a letter dated 18.2.2015 by which he called for information relating to the conduct of cricket matc…

Diamond Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 208/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 208/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Diamond Beverages Private Limited Pr. Cit, Kolkata - 2 P-41, Taratala Road Vs Taratala Kolkata – 700 088 Pan : Aabcd3346C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : S. Agarwal, Aca Revenue By : Md. Ghayas Uddin, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/07/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajpal Yadav:

For Appellant: S. Agarwal, ACAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, CIT, D/R

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 37Section 80G

…this Court that where a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the AO accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue."....  CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) (Bom)(HC) "12. 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 law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order should have been…

Ravi Metallics Limited, Rourkela vs. Pr.CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/CTK/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaravi Metallics Limited, I/10, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No.Adqps 4031 G ………………Assessee Versus Pr.Cit, Sambalpur ………………..Revenue Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar For The Assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr For The Revenue Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Passed U/S.263 Of The Act In Case No.Pcit/Sbp/263/26/2018-19, Dated 29.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. Heard On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Record, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 686 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Filed An Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Delay Occurred In Filing The Present Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate But Due To Unfortunate & Unavoidable Circumstances Beyond

Section 253Section 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, i…

M/S. Orbit Ceratiles P. Ltd., Morbi vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 103/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot01 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.103/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul RanuraFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…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 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…

Pramukh Realty, Junagadh vs. The PCIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 93/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.93/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul RanpuraFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.R

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

…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…

Sanjay Amrutrao Satav (HUF), Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 12(4), Pune

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

ITA 200/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.200/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Amrutrao Satav Vs. Ito, Ward- 12(4), Pune. (Huf), Amrut Palace Bungalow, Gat No.12 Bhavadi Road Wagholi, Near Bhairavnath Mandir, Taluka Haveli, Pune- 412207. Pan : Aayhs1085F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Pooja Rander Revenue By : Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 4, Pune [‘The Pr.Cit’] Dated 31.03.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Smt. Pooja RanderFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena

Section 2Section 263Section 45Section 54Section 54B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.200/PUN/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Amrutrao Satav Vs. ITO, Ward- 12(4), Pune. (HUF), Amrut Palace Bungalow, Gat No.12 Bhavadi Road Wagholi, Near Bhairavnath Mandir, Taluka Haveli, Pune- 412207. PAN : AAYHS1085F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Pooja Rander Revenue by : Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date of hearing : 29.06.2022 Date of pronouncement : 30.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appe…

Vanraj Protein Industries, Junagadh vs. The PCIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 104/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot29 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.104/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul RanuraFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.R

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

…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…