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.

Mayur Khara, Yavatmal vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur

In the result, Both the appeals of above mentioned assessee’s are allowed

ITA 64/NAG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mayur Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8869 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Amit Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8868 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Above Mentioned Assessees Against Two Different Orders Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Nagpur- 2 Dated 17-02-2017 & 16-02-20217 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Respectively. The Grounds Of Raised By The Above Mentioned Assessees Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ction 263 and submits that in absence of the twin conditions being satisfied, the revision was not justified. a. CIT v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) b. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT[2000] 243 ITR 83(SC), c. CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108(Bom)(HC) d. CIT vs. Vikas Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537(Delhi)(HC) e. CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR632 (Bom)(HC), f. Grasim Industries Ltd vs. CIT [2010] 321 ITR 92(Bom)(HC) g. CIT vs. NiravModi [2017] 390 ITR 292(Bom) (HC) 9 Shri Mayur Khara vs Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur The ld. AR of appellant further subm…

Gunja Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd, Purulia vs. PCIT, Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Gunja Samabay Krishi Pcit, Asansol Unnayan Samity Ltd. Vill. Gunja, Golbera, P.S. Vs. Joypur, Dist. Purulia, Pin. 723103 Pan: Aabag 2110 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. Goenka, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sudipta Guha, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(i)

…carried on by the assessee resulting into business income which is covered by the provisions of section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 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 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 Income-tax Officer is 'errone…

Upal Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the asses

ITA 871/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Upal Developers Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of Market City Resources Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-8, Second Floor, R.R. Hosiery Bldg. Vs. Mumbai. Shree Laxmi Woolen Mills Estate, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacu 7953 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…o the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. In Commissioner of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 Income Tax vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 a Division Bench a Division Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High C Hon’ble Bombay High Court observed that Section 263 does not observed that Section 263 does not Upal Developers Pvt. Ltd. 18 empower the Comm empower the Commissioner to substitute his judgment for that of ment for that of the Assessing Offic…

Genpact Consulting (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (Earlier Known As 'Headstrong Consulting Pte. Ltd.'), Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1) Int. Tax., New Delhi

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

ITA 501/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 2(47)Section 263Section 45Section 47

…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)…

Sandip Kanubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 104/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 104/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2017-2018 Sandip Kanubhai Patel, Principal Commissioner Of Avirat House, Vs. Income Tax-3, Nr. Science City, Ahmedabad. Sola Science City Road, Sola, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT. D.R

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 54B

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ C’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 104/AHD/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2017-2018 Sandip Kanubhai Patel, Principal Commissioner of Avirat House, Vs. Income Tax-3, Nr. Science City, Ahmedabad. Sola Science City Road, Sola, Ahmedabad. PAN: AGLPP6991J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Parin Shah, A.R Revenue by : Shri Alok Kumar, CIT. D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25/05/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 24/06/2022 आदे…

Shri Purav Dahyabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 364/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 364/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2015-2016 Purav Dahyabhai Patel, Pr. C.I.T-1, 10, Vrundavan Bungalows Part-3, Vs. Ahmedabad. Thaltej-Shilaj Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380059. Pan: Bejpp7846B

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT. D.R

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ C’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 364/AHD/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2015-2016 Purav Dahyabhai Patel, Pr. C.I.T-1, 10, Vrundavan Bungalows Part-3, Vs. Ahmedabad. Thaltej-Shilaj Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380059. PAN: BEJPP7846B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.N. Divatia, A.R Revenue by : Shri Alok Kumar, CIT. D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25/05/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER WA…

Lalitadevi N. Tibrewala, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 318/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 318/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Lalitadevi N. Tibrewala, Pr. Commissioner Of 6, Professor Colony, Vs. Income Tax, Nr. Vijay Cross Roads, Ahmedabad-5 Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aappt0073M

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT, D.R with Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 263Section 54

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ C’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 318/AHD/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Lalitadevi N. Tibrewala, Pr. Commissioner of 6, Professor Colony, Vs. Income Tax, Nr. Vijay Cross Roads, Ahmedabad-5 Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. PAN: AAPPT0073M & आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 670/AHD/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Lalitadevi N. Tibrewala, I.T.O., 6, Professor Colony, Vs. Ward-5(2)(5), Nr. Vijay Cross Roads, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-38…

Learning Curve Edutech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 832/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…d PCIT does not agree with the possible view taken by learned Assessing Officer, assessment cannot be the subject matter of revision. Reliance in this regard is placed on Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (reported in 203 ITR 108) and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282). 9. We find that learned Departmental Representative during the course of hearing had placed reliance on various decisions as under :- • CIT Vs. Eastern Medikit Ltd. (337 ITR 56)(Del) • Raj Mandir Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. PCIT (77 taxmann.com 285)(SC) 12 Lear…

Apc Books, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-51(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 138/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Girewal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ishtiyaque Ahmed, CIT- DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 138/DEL/2022 [A.Y. 2017-18] M/s APC Books Vs. The A.C.I.T 1002-03, FAIZ Road Circle -51(1) Karol Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAMFA 1936 D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.S. Girewal, CA Ms. Reema Girewal, CA Department By : Shri Ishtiyaque Ahmed, CIT- DR Date of Hearing : 23.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 26.05.2022 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- With this appeal, the assessee has challenged the assumption of juri…

Sun Direct Tv Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1320/CHNY/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 May 2022AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1320/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S.Sun Direct Tv Private Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Murasoli Maran Towers, Income Tax, 73, Mrc Nagar Main Road, Non-Corporate Circle-20, Mrc Nagar, Chennai-600 028. Chennai. Pan: Aaics 7671L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. S.Palani Kumar, CITFor Respondent: 15.03.2022

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

…ssessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that enquiries conducted by the Assessing Officer is inadequate. This legal principle is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 108 and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del). Therefore, we are of the considered view that the PCIT has erred in revising the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.263 of the Act on the ground that assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous,…

M/S Parwati Educational & Welfare Trust, Patna vs. Pr.CIT-Central, Patna

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 45/PAT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue “unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law”. 2. In the case of CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 108 (BOM) Bombay High court held that, where the ITO had made enquiries in regard to the nature of the expenditure incurred by the assessee who had given detailed explanation in that regard by a letter in writing and all these are part of the record of the case and the claim was allowed by the ITO on being satisfied with the explanation of the assess…

M/S Parwati Educational & Welfare Trust, Patna vs. Pr.CIT-Central, Patna

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 44/PAT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

Taqa Neyveli Power Company Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-3

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 149/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय -ी वी. दुगा3राव, "ाियक सद5 एवं माननीय -ी मनोज कुमार अ9वाल ,लेखा सद5 के सम;। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.149/Chny/2021 (िनधा3रणवष3 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) TAQA Neyveli Power Company Pvt. PCIT, Chennai -3, Ltd. No. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road बनाम/ No. 79, Kasth Nungambakkam uri Avenue, MRC Nagar, Raja Chennai – 34. Vs. Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AACCS-2753-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ"…

Axis Bank Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is allowed

ITA 892/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…y out any enquiry without remitting the matter to file of Assessing Officer for verification and the ITA. No. 892/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 same is contrary to the judgment of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108. 9. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessing Officer had failed to make the necessary enquiries about the contributions received by the Appellant during the relevant previous year and the application of the same towards the objects of the trust. The Assessing Officer has merely accepted the submissions made by the…

Himanshu Engineering Works, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 675/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 May 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shushilkumar Madhuk, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member ITA No. 675 /Ahd/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 Himanshu Engineering Pr. CIT-3, Works P.A. No. Ahmedabad AABFH2716F, Vs (Respondent) Plot No. 620, Phase-IV, GIDC, Vatva, Ahmedabad PAN: AABFH2716F (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri P.F. Jain, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Shushilkumar Madhuk, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing : 21-03-2022 Date of pronouncement : 18-05-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal f…

Clifton Pearson Export & Agencies, Kolkata vs. PCIT-5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 546/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 3

…on, then the assessment order cannot be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue merely on the ground that there is no discussion on these point in the assessment orders by relying on the decision of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108(Bom). The Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers reported 341 ITR 537(Bom) wherein it has been held that there is a distinction between lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry and it is only a case of lack of enquiry, the ld PCIT can exercise his revisionary powers under the Act…

Shri Krishna Agri Projects Private Limited, Kolkata vs. P.C.I.T., -4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 380/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

…diction High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Kesoram Industries Ltd. (2020) 423 ITR 180(Cal) and also a number of other decisions namely Malabar Industrial Co vs. CIT 198 ITR 611(SC) ,CIT vs. Maxx India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC) and CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108(Bom). 6. The ld. D.R on the other hand submitted before the bench that during the course of survey, the survey team impounded certain paper which comprised of two profit and loss account of the same date disclosing one net profit of Rs. 46,82,054/- whereas the other showed net loss of Rs. 26,82,183/-. The Ld. D.R. relied heavily on the order of…

M/S Rajendra and Ursula Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

ITA 57/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Mehar (CIT)

Section 263Section 5

…two views are possible and the AO has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the Revenue, unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law." 1.3 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 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 Income-t…

M/S Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Developement Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

ITA 56/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Mehar (CIT)

Section 263Section 5

Masthi Gowda P, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 367/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

…h Court of Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jainand Another [31 ITR 872], the High Court of Karnataka in Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore v. T. Narayana Pai [98 ITR 422], the High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gabriel India Ltd. [203 ITR 108] and the High Court of Gujarat in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh [215 ITR 81] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. "** ** ** ** 9. The phrase prejudicial to the interests of the revenue has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the AO. Every loss of revenue as a consequ…