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 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.

Manjunatha, K R Pet vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 364/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…

Aditya Gopal Export Private Limited, Chennai vs. Pr. Commr. Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.132/Rjt/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 M/S Aditya Gopal Exports Pvt. The Principal Commissioner Ltd. Vs. Of Income-Tax, No.6/20, Rukmani Street, Jamnagar West Mambalam, Chennai-600033. (Tamilnadu) Pan: Aacca3014H

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Oza, CIT. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER अपील सं./ITA No.132/Rjt/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 M/s Aditya Gopal Exports Pvt. The Principal Commissioner Ltd. Vs. of Income-tax, No.6/20, Rukmani Street, Jamnagar West Mambalam, Chennai-600033. (Tamilnadu) PAN: AACCA3014H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R Revenue by : Shri K.K. Oza, CIT. D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 11/04/2022 घोषणा क" तारी…

M/S Nagpur Vidyapeeth Karamchari Sahakari Prataya Sanstha Maryadit, Nagpur vs. Princiapal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

The appeals of the appellant are allowed in above terms

ITA 133/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 133/Nag/2019 आयकर िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 M/S Nagpur Vidyapeeth Karamachari Sahakari Prataya Sanstha Maryadit Lit Premises, Bharati Nagar, Nagpur – 440 001(Mh) Pan : Aaban 0404 H . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Nagpur – 440 001 (Mh) . . . . . . . ""यथ" / Respondent }Kjk / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Mahavir Atal Revenue By : Shri Vithal Bhosale सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 16/02/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull, Am; The Present Appeal Against The Revisionary Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nagpur [For Short “Pcit”] Dt. 19/03/2019 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Leapt Out Of Regular Order Of Assessment Dt. 12/08/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer-Ward-1(4), Nagpur [For Shot “Ao”], The Appellant Assessee Filed Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [For Short “The Tribunal”] U/S 253. Itat-Nagpur Page 1 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Vithal Bhosale
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…ing on the same fence displaced with the views of Ld. AO and directed for modification of assessment which is seemingly impermissible under a law following the ration laid in down by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in “CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd.” reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Malabar Industrial Co Ltd. Vs CIT” reported in 243 ITR 83. Ergo, we find the order of Ld. PCIT is unsustainable in law, consequently we quash the 263 revisionary order and restore the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3). 9. Resultantly, the appeals of the appellant are allowed in above terms. Order pronounc…

Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth Karmchari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Akola vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Nagpur

The appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 222/NAG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 222/Nag/2018 आयकर धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth Karmchari Sahakari Path Sanstha Akola. (Maharashtra) Pan : Aaaad 3455 D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Nagpur – 440 001 (Mh) . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent }Kjk / Appearances Assessee By : Shri P.K. Dewani Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Headoo सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 15/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull, Am; Against The Revisionary Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Nagpur [For Short “Pcit”] Dt. 31/03/2018 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Dived Out Of Regular Assessment Order Dt. 10/08/2015 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer-Ward-1, Akola [For Shot “Ao”], The Appellant Assessee Filed This Appeal Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [For Short “The Tribunal”] U/S 253. Itat-Nagpur Page 1 Of 12

For Appellant: Shri P.K. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Headoo
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263Section 80P

…ng on the same fence displaced with the views of Ld. AO and directed for modification of assessment which is ostensibly impermissible under a law following the ration laid in down by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in “CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd.” reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Malabar Industrial Co Ltd. Vs CIT” reported in 243 ITR 83. Ergo, in the above context, we find the order of Ld PCIT is unsustainable in law, consequently, quash the revisionary order passed u/s 263 and restore the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3). 10. Resultantly, the appeal of the appellant is allowed.…

Nivedita Mahila Gramin Bigar Shetaki Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Navargaon vs. Pr. CIT -3, Nagpur

The appeals of the appellant are allowed in terms of aforesaid observation

ITA 123/NAG/2018[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Apr 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 123/Nag/2018 & 107/Nag/2019 आयकर िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 M/S Nivedita Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Maryadit Dr Hedgewar Chowk, Navargaon, Shindewahi, Chandrapur – 441 223(Mh) Pan : Aaaan 3421 D . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3, Aayakar Bhavan, Nagpur – 440 001 (Mh) . . . . . . . ""यथ" / Respondent }Kjk / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Loya Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Headoo सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 15/02/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull, Am; Against The Revisionary Orders Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Nagpur [For Short “Pcit”] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Sprung Out Of Regular Orders Of Assessments Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, By The Income Tax Officer-Ward-3, Nagpur [For Shot “Ao”], The Appellant Assessee Filed These Appeals Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [For Short “Tribunal”] U/S 253 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Headoo
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263Section 80P

…ng on the same fence displaced with the views of Ld. AO and directed for modification of assessment which is ostensibly impermissible under a law following the ration laid in down by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in “CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd.” reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Malabar Industrial Co Ltd. Vs CIT” reported in 243 ITR 83. Ergo, in the above context, we find the order of Ld. PCIT is unsustainable in law, consequently we quash the 263 revisionary orders and restore the orders of assessment passed u/s 143(3). 10. Resultantly, the appeals of the appellant are allowed in te…

M/S Mustafa Associates, Chandrapur vs. C.I.T.-3, Nagpur

The appeal of the appellant is allowed in term of aforestated observation

ITA 167/NAG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 167/Nag/2015 आयकर िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 M/S Mustafa Associates, Nr Vasant Bhavan, Kasturba Rd. Chandrapur – 442 402(Maharashtra) Pan : Aalfm 6727 F . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Aayakar Bhavan, Nagpur – 440 001 (Mh) . . . . . . . ""यथ" / Respondent }Kjk / Appearances Assessee By : Shri S. C. Thakar Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Headoo सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 18/02/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull, Am; The Appellant Against The Revisionary Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Nagpur [For Short “Cit”] Dt. 07/03/2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Dove Out Of Regular Order Of Assessment Dt. 27/11/2012 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer-Ward-2, Chandrapur [For Shot “Ao”], Filed These Appeals Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [For Short “The Tribunal”] U/S 253. Itat-Nagpur Page 1 Of 16

For Appellant: Shri S. C. ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Headoo
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय "यायािधकरण, नागपुर "यायपीठ, नागपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR (Through Virtual Court at Raipur) BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAMLAPPA D BATTULL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 167/NAG/2015 आयकर िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 M/s Mustafa Associates, Nr Vasant Bhavan, Kasturba Rd. Chandrapur – 442 402(Maharashtra) PAN : AALFM 6727 F . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Aayakar Bhavan, Nagpur – 440 001 (Mh) . . . . . . . ""यथ" / Respondent }kjk / Appearances Assessee by : Shri S. C. Thaka…

Kavita Jayeshkumar Kotak, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT (Central), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/AHD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Nupur Shah, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Madhu, CIT-D.R
Section 10(38)Section 114Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 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’.” 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 wh…

The Greater Bombay Co-Op Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 600/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Greater Bombay Vs. Pr.Cit -1 Co- Op Bank Ltd, Room No. 330, 3Rd 89 Gbcb House, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Bhuleshwar, Mumbai – M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400002 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aabat4479N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ashok Sharma.Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajit K.Shrivastava.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit) Mumbai-1 Passed U/Sec 263 Of The Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Sharma.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajit K.Shrivastava.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…the A.O. Whereas the A.O has applied his mind and verified the facts. The Ld. AR referred to the submissions, financial statements and explanations filed before the A.O and we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court Bombay in CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd.203 ITR 108.(Bom). 7. We find that the Hon’ble tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier years on the similar issue has granted the relief in ITA No. 1112/Mum/2014 A.Y 2011-12. The Ld. DR submitted that the department has challenged the relief granted to assesee before the Hon’ble High Court and the same is pending. We Considering the overall facts, circu…

Sehorse Mercantile Co. P Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-6, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as above

ITA 1286/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 263

…s been under assessed, the Ld. PCIT cannot be said to have complied with the condition of "prejudicial to the interest of revenue.” 10. Learned Counsel of the assessee placed reliance upon Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of ITO Vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (343 ITR 329). Further learned counsel submitted that without prejudice the issue raised by the learned PCIT could have at the most been taken up by reopening of the assessment and not revision under section 263 of the Act. He submitted that there was time for…

Karnika Fuels & Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

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

ITA 439/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Karnika Fuels & Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 2, Kolkata Commodities Pvt. Ltd. C/O Rsvpc Aaykar Bhawan & Company, 41 A, A.J.C Bose Vs. P-7 Chowringhee Sq., Kolkata-700 Road, Suite No. 613, 6Th Fl., 069. Kolkata-700 017. Pan: Aacck8368C (Appellant/Department) (Respondent/Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kr. Jain, FCA (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manish Kanojia, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA {VIRTUAL COURT HEARING} BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Karnika Fuels & Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- 2, Kolkata Commodities Pvt. Ltd. C/o RSVPC Aaykar Bhawan, & Company, 41 A, A.J.C Bose Vs. P-7 Chowringhee Sq., Kolkata-700 Road, Suite No. 613, 6th Fl., 069. Kolkata-700 017. PAN: AACCK8368C (Appellant/Department) (Respondent/Assessee Present for: Appellant by : Shri Vinod Kr. Jain, FCA (AR) Respondent by : Shri Manish Kanojia, Addl.CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 08-02-2022 Dat…

Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT (Central)-4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 953/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blemulti Commodity Exchange Of V. Pr.Cit –(Central)-4 India Limited 6Th Floor, Room No. 663 Cts 255, Exchange Square Suren Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chakala Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400093 Pan: Aadcm8239K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Tanzil Padvekar Department By : Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

…ection 263 of the Act, that the Order should be erroneous and also it should cause prejudice to the interest of the revenue have not been fulfilled. Reliance is placed on following two decisions in support of the argument:- i. Income-Tax vs Gabriel India Ltd [203 ITR 108] ii. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 243 ITR 83 Prayer:- In light of the above submissions, it is prayed that the impugned order passed by id. CIT (Central) Mumbai -4 dated 30/03/2021 may be quashed and set aside for lack of want of jurisdiction.” 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the finding of the Ld. Pr.CIT.…

Chalk Farm Ventures P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -1, Thane

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

ITA 906/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.906/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) बनधम/ Chalk Farm Ventures Pvt. Pcit-1 Ltd. B Wing, Ashar It Park, Vs. 6Th Floor, Wagle No.202, Delta Building, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Industrial Estate, Thane- Mumbai-400076. 400604 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcc0332A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Sanjay Parikh Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2016-17 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 2. “Ground A: Proceeding U/S 263 Of The It Act Is Invalid & Bad In Law 1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Thane-1, (Pr. Cit) Erred In Facts & In Passing The Order U/S. 263 Without Appreciating That The Appellant Company Was Under Liquidation & No Order U/S. 263 Could Be Passed Without Giving Adequate Notice To The Liquidator Of The Appellant Company. 2. He Appellant Prays That Your Honour Hold That The Order Passed By The Ao U/S. 263 Is Bad In Law As The Same Is Passed Without Issuing Notice To The Liquidator Of The Appellant Company.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 371(1)

…assessment. The AO has already taken the possible view. The assessment is not further liable to be reopened. In this regard, we also find support of the law settled in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. V CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108, CIT Vs. Nirav Modi (2017) 390 ITR 292, CIT Vs. Chemsword P. Ltd. (2020) 119 taxmann.com 358 & CIT Vs. Future Corporate Resources Ltd. (2021) 132 taxmann.com 173. In view of the said factual circumstances and the law relied by the Ld. Representative of the assessee, we are of the view that the PCIT has wrongly passed the order u/s 263 of the Act.…

M/S. Ravi Foundation, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-17, Mumbai

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

ITA 884/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Ms. Arati AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(2)

…R 568 (Mad.) 8. L.G.Electronics India (P.) Ltd. Vs. PCIT, [2016] 388 ITR 135 (All.) 9. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. PCIT, ITAT-New Delhi, dated 14.05.2020 10. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 11. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd., [1993] 71 Taxmann 585 (Bom.) 12. PCIT Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., DHC-dated 05.09.20 17 13. PCIT Vs. Medicare Ltd., DHC-dated 14.09.2017 14. ITO Vs. D.G.Housing Projects Ltd., [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Del.) 15. DIT Vs. Jyoti Foundation., [2013] 357 ITR 388 (Del.) 16. Shri Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO, ITAT-New Delhi-dated 06.05.2016. Brahma Center Developmen…

Tmf Holding Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -1, Mumbai

ITA 1628/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 47

…tisfied. The said proposition has been held by various High Courts! Supreme court in various decisions as under: • Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs. CIT (2000) (243 ITR 83) (SC) (Refer page 156 to 160 of the legal paper book); • CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd (1993) (203 ITR 108) (Refer page 161 to 166 of the legal paper book); • Indus Best Hospitality & Realtors Pvt Ltd (ITA No. 3125/Mum/2017) dated 19 January 2018 14. In view of the above judicial precedents, it is submitted that order sought to be revised by the learned PCIT is not erroneous as there is no wrong application of law or an incorrect assumption of fact. A…

M/S. Prachi Agriculture & Properties Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur

ITA 30/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 30/Rpr/2021 कर धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017 M/S Prachi Agriculture & Properties Private Limited 18-19, Anupam Nagar, Raipur (Cg) 492 001 Pan : Aabcp 3701 H . . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Nikhilesh Begani Revenue By : Shri P. K. Mishra सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 10/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull, Am; Against The Revisionary Order Of Principal Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 [For Short “Pcit”] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Vide Order Dt 26/03/2021, For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2016-2017, The Appellant Assessee Filed This Appeal Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [For Short “The Tribunal”] U/S 253(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh BeganiFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra
Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 263Section 68

…to hold the action as unsustainable in law and this view has been invigorated by the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in “Jeewanlal limited Vs ACIT” reported in 108 ITR 407 (Cal). Further the Hon’ble High of Court of Bombay in “CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd” reported in 203 ITR 108 has also taken similar view that, unless the revisionary authority forms a conclusion on the basis of concrete, tangible & evidential material, it cannot reach to the conclusion rendering the order of assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In the light of aforestated reasoning, we neither find any infirmity with the…

Pravinbhai Kanubhai Desai, Ahmedabad vs. Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 692/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 692/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2013-2014 Pravinbhai Kanubhai Desai, Principal Commissioner Of 64, Prernapark Society, Vs. Income Tax-6, Nr. Gor Nakuva, Ahmedabad. Maninagar, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, C.I.T D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ A’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 692/AHD/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2013-2014 Pravinbhai kanubhai Desai, Principal Commissioner of 64, Prernapark Society, Vs. Income Tax-6, Nr. Gor naKuva, Ahmedabad. Maninagar, Ahmedabad. PAN: ABLPD2694K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.N. Divatia, A.R Revenue by : Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, C.I.T D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/04/2022 घो…

Shri Radha Govind Lashkari, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Savita Bundas, (CIT D/R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…here being any material to hold even prima-facie that the assessment order passed by A.O. is erroneous which is not valid in the eyes of law (CIT Vs. Trustees Anupam Charitable Trust (1987) 167 ITR (129) (Rajasthan), CIT Vs. Godawari Sugar Mills Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Shakti Charities (2000) 160 CTR 107 (Mad.). The facts and submissions are verifiable from the assessment record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Green World Corporation (2009) 314 ITR 81 (SC) held that ‘The jurisdiction under section 263 can be exercised only when both the following conditions are satisfied (i) t…

Piramal Investment Opportunities Fund, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Range-20, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 700/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 700/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2015-16 ) Piramal Investment Opportunities Fund, Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai 400 013 Pan: Aactp-3767-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -20, Room No.418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai 400 012. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ronak Doshi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri R.K.Sahu & Milind Chavan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/01/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 11/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai -20 (In Short ‘The Pcit’) Dated 12/03/2021 For Assessment Year 2015-16, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( In Short ‘ The Act’ )

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: S/Shri R.K.Sahu and Milind Chavan
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 61

…e not satisfied in the present case, the PCIT has exceeded his jurisdiction in exercising revisional powers. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee in support of his argument placed reliance on the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom). 7 3. Per contra, Shri R.K.Sahu representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee. The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that during assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer has not verified the Trust deed. The Assessing Officer merely accepted the documents file…

Jalan Educational Trust, Sambalpur vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 60/CTK/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Jalan Jalan Educational Educational Trust, Trust, Vs. Cit (Exemption), Cit (Exemption), Odysseey Complex, Ainthapali, Odysseey Complex, Ainthapali, Hyderabad Sambalpur Pan/Gir No. No.Aabtj 1733 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar S.S.Poddar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 8 /3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/ /4/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The O This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The O This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(E), Hyderabad U/S.263 Of The Act Dated 31.3.2021 Cit(E), Hyderabad U/S.263 Of The Act Dated 31.3.2021 Cit(E), Hyderabad U/S.263 Of The Act Dated 31.3.2021 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. .

For Appellant: Shri S.S.PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam
Section 143(3)Section 263

…rect facts and we are compelled to hold that the impugned revisionary order has been passed by considering the fact without application of mind. Ld A.R. has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bom), wherein, it is held that even after initiating proceedings for revision and hearing the assessee, the CIT could not say that the allowance of the claim of the assessee was erroneous that the expenditure was not revenue expenditure but an expenditure of capital nature. It is also held that there must be material before the Commissioner to s…

Sach Electro Mech Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. CIT-2, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 392/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 145ASection 14ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 40A

…cals Works. Pvt. Ltd. [309 ITR 0067] (Guj HC) 9. Rayon Silk Mills vs. CIT (A) [221 ITR 0155] (Guj HC) 10. PR.CIT v/s. Shreeji Prints Pvt. Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 828 of 2019] (Guj HC) 11. CIT vs. Nirav Modi [390 ITR 0292 (Bom. HC)] 12. CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. [203 ITR 108(Bom)] 13. Moil Ltd. vs CIT [81 taxmann.com 420 (Bom. HC)] 14. CIT vs. Fine Jewellery India Ltd. 55 taxmann.com 514] (Bom HC) 15. Anil Kumar Sharma [335 ITR 0083] (Delhi HC) 16. ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Limited [343 ITR 329](Del HC)] 17. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [189 Taxman 0436 (Del.)] 18. PR.CIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. [ITA…