CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.

203 ITR 108High Court1993#43 most cited

What is CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. authority for?

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order under Section 263 merely because they hold a different opinion or believe a deeper inquiry was warranted if the Assessing Officer has applied their mind and conducted some inquiry. Revision under Section 263 is permissible only in cases of a complete lack of inquiry or non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, not for merely inadequate inquiry.

990

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. · 203 ITR 108 · Section 263 · revision under Section 263 · inadequate inquiry · lack of inquiry · non-application of mind · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · Commissioner's power of revision

Also reported as

71 Taxmann 585

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.

Arihant Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Bhilai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur

ITA 61/RPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 61/Rpr/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 Arihant Jewellers Private Limited 2/6, Akash Ganga, Supela, Bhilai (C.G.) .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant Pan : Aaica 6953 H

For Appellant: Shri S. R. RaoFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

…to hold the action as unsustainable in law and our 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 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 order of as…

Shri Akhilesh Jain, Raipur vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur

ITA 60/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 60/Rpr/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017 Akhilesh Jain 113, Rishabh Chambers 113, Rishabh Chambers, Mg Road, Jawahar Nagar Chhattisgarh . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant Pan : Aenpj 5122 M

For Appellant: Shri S. R. RaoFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263Section 263(1)

…dverse opinion on the same facts & circumstances, without any refuting material on record to demonstrate fulfilment of twin conditions. 12. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court while adjudicating the similar issue in the case of CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd reported at 203 ITR 108, referring to the ration laid down by Hon’ble Justice Raghuveer in “Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd Vs ITO”, tumbledown the revisionary action in para 10 thereof as; 10. As observed in Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. ITO by Raghuveer J. (as his Lordship then was), the Department cannot be permitted to begin fresh litigation because of new views they entertain…

Facit Sales(P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kol-5, Kolkata

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

ITA 406/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

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

….L. Morrison (India) Ltd. (2004) 366 ITR 593 (Cal). ii) CIT vs. R.K. Construction (2009) 313 ITR 65 (Guj). iii) CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (2010) 194 Taxman 504 (Del). iv) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). v) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom). vi) CIT vs. Deepak Mittal, 324 ITR 311 (P&H). vii) Smt. Juthika Kar vs. ITO [ITA No.1128/Kol/2009, order dated 16.05.2012]. 8 I.T.A. No.: 406/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Facit Sales Private Limited. 7. It was also submitted that no independent enquiry has been made by ld. Pr. CIT on his own and has solely acted on the informa…

Gurbakshish Singh Batra, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT - 12, New Delhi

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

ITA 396/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.Cit-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Pan: Adspb2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd March, 2021 Of The Pcit, Delhi-12, Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th October, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.44,86,160/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ Based On The Following Reasons:-

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 263Section 50C

…020] 120 taxmann.com 187 (Madras HC) [06- 10- 2020] x. M/s SUTURES INDIA PVT. LTD vs. PCIT (ITA No. 115 OF 2010) (Dt. 02/12/2020) (Karnataka HC); 8 xi. CIT vs. VodafoneEssar South Ltd. (ITA No.119/2012) (Delhi High Court); xii. IT vs. Gabriel India Ltd [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay HC); xiii. CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma [2011] 335 ITR 83 (Delhi HC); xiv. M/s Arun Kumar Garg HUF vs. Pr. CIT (ITA No. 3391/Del/2018) (Delhi Trib.) (Dt. 08/01/2019); xv. Narayan Tatu Rane vs. ITO [2016] 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mumbai) [06- 05-2016]; xvi. JRD Tata Trust vs. DCIT [2021] 85 ITR (T) 431 (Mumbai-Trib.) [28.12.2020]; xvii. Bhandari H…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2022AY 2016-17
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…e year under consideration. Ld. PCIT erred in not bringing 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 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 'erroneo…

Smt. Aruna Gulabchandra Gupta, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Mumbai-17, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 114/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blesmt Aruna Gulab Chandra Gupta V. Pr.Cit – Mumbai – 17 3Rd Floor, Rustom Building 29 Room No. 120, 1St Floor Veer Nariman Road, Fort Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 Mumbai - 400001 G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aelpg7315P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jotwani Department By : Ms. Sailaja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Ms. Sailaja Rai
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…te inquiry. Our view is fortified by the decision of the hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. Nirav Modi [2017] 390 ITR 292 (Born) ; [2016] 71 taxmann.com 272 (Born)." The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Born) has held that: "the decision of the Income-tax Officer cannot be held to be erroneous simply because in his order he did not made an elaborate discussion in this regard ……." The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Micro Inks Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2018] 407 ITR 681 (Guj) ; 85 taxmann.com 310 has held that: "If the Assessing Officer has ado…

Reliance Payment Solutions Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -8, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is allowed

ITA 1010/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…to the exchequer as change in the rate of depreciation only results into a timing difference and would not have any impact as the Company is into losses.' Assessee has placed its reliance on following judicial pronouncements: CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2012] 341 ITR 537 (Del) Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Netscribes (India) Pvt. Ltd. vITO (2014-TIOL-933- ITAT-MUM) Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (2013| 140 ITD 642 (Mum.) 5. None of these submissions however impressed the learned PCIT who rejected these submissions and observed as follows:- 5. The conten…

M/S Satyam Educational Health & Charitable Trust, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-Central, Patna

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 39/PAT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

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

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…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…

M/S Satyam Educational Health & Charitable Trust, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-Central, Patna

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 38/PAT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…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…

M/S Satyam Educational Health & Charitable Trust, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-Central, Patna

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 37/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…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…

M/S Satyam Educational Health & Charitable Trust, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-Central, Patna

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 36/PAT/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

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

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…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…

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result we hold that the learned principal

ITA 737/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

For Appellant: Ms Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263(2)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…various judicial pronouncements delivered under similar circumstances are also relied upon and the same are discussed as under. (i) As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", Hon'ble Bombay High Court in C.I.T. vs Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), while referring to Black's Law Dictionary observed that an "erroneous judgment" means "one rendered according to course and practice of Court, but contrary to law, upon mistaken view of law: or upon erroneous application of legal principles". In the instant case the assessing officer ought to have made enquiries relating to correctness…

Mrs Minakshi Shivkumar Bansal, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner Ofincome-Tax -6, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 345/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.345/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Minakshi Shivkumar Vs. Pr. Cit- 6, Bansal, Pune. Building No.A-3, Flat No.702, Oxford Village Wanworie, Pune- 411040. Pan : Ablpb1124E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By Shri B. Koteswara Rao : Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2022 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- 6, Pune [‘Pcit’ For Short] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 11.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Holding That The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Dated 30-10- 2015 Is Erroneous In As Much As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Hari Krishan
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

…t. Thus, it was contended 5 that it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer made the assessment without any application of mind. In support of this, reliance placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bom.-HC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers, 259 ITR 502 (Guj.-HC). 5. On due consideration of the above submissions, the ld. PCIT held that while completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer had accepted the value as per the valuer report of Rs.33,81,750/- as against the value of stamp…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 1602/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1602/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 1600/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2017-18) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Taxation Section, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacb-2902-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, Room No.344, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi
Section 10(34)Section 236Section 263Section 32A

…ous. To buttress his argument, the ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Reliance Communication Ltd., 244 Taxman 55(SC) (ii) CIT vs. Reliance Communication Ltd., 396 ITR 217(Bom) (iii) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108(Bom) 5 ITA NO.1600/MUM/2020 (A.Y.2017-18) Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 4.2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the Assessing Officer after examining assessee’s claim of investment allowance accepted the same in scrutiny assessment proceedings. The view taken by the Assessing…

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Circlr-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 1600/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1602/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 1600/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2017-18) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Taxation Section, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacb-2902-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, Room No.344, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi
Section 10(34)Section 236Section 263Section 32A

…ous. To buttress his argument, the ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Reliance Communication Ltd., 244 Taxman 55(SC) (ii) CIT vs. Reliance Communication Ltd., 396 ITR 217(Bom) (iii) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108(Bom) 5 ITA NO.1600/MUM/2020 (A.Y.2017-18) Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 4.2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the Assessing Officer after examining assessee’s claim of investment allowance accepted the same in scrutiny assessment proceedings. The view taken by the Assessing…

Joynet Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-27, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 868/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 868/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Joynet Developers Llp बिधम/ Pr. Cit Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, 101/B, Bellona, Pant Nagar, Vs. 90 Feet Road, Ghatkopar Tower No.6, Vashi Station East, Mumbai-400075. Complex, Vashi-400703. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfk0186D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hemant Shah Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(“Pcit”)- 27, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “(Pcit)”] In View Of The Provisions U/S 263 Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “The Following Grounds Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-27 Has Erred In Setting Aside The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Learned

For Appellant: Shri Hemant ShahFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ions u/s 263 of the Act which seems nowhere justifiable. Since the issue has already been examined. In this regard, we also find support of law decision mentioned as under: - (i) The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 91 Taxman 585/203 ITR 108 ITA. No.868/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 (ii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 109 Taxman 66/243 ITR 83 (iii) Aryan Arcade Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT (2019) 412 ITR 277 (Guj) 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21/02/2022 (AMARJIT SINGH) (AMARJIT SINGH लेखध सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT M…

M/S. Veena Patil Hospitality P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-8, Mumbai

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

ITA 627/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Veena Patil Vs. Pcit-8 Hospitality Pvt Ltd Room No. 611, 701To 705, Neelkanth 6Th Floor, Aayakar Corporate Park, Kirol Bhavan, Mk Road, Road, Vidhyavihar Mumbai – 400 020 West, Mumbai - 400086 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecv4768R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Yogesh Thar.C.A. Ar Respondent By : Shri. Achal Sharma.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-8, Mumbai, Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Yogesh Thar.C.A. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Achal Sharma.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Veena Patil Vs. PCIT-8 hospitality Pvt Ltd Room No. 611, 701to 705, Neelkanth 6th Floor, Aayakar Corporate Park, kirol Bhavan, MK Road, Road, Vidhyavihar Mumbai – 400 020 West, Mumbai - 400086 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAECV4768R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri. Yogesh Thar.C.A. AR Respondent by : Shri. Achal Sharma.DR Date of Hearing 30.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement 14.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assesse…

Breach Candy Hospital Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 807/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalebreach Candy Hospital Vs. Cit (Exemptions) Trust, Room, Mp/ 617, 6Th 60, Bhulabhai Desai Floor, Piramal Road, Mumbai – Chambers, Lalbaug, 400026. Parel, Mumbai – 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb0214D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Ketan Ved. Ar Respondent By : Shri. Mahesh Akhade. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 19.03.2021.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Ketan Ved. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Mahesh Akhade. DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 263

…d enquiry conducted by 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. We find the Hon’ble High Court 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…

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 942/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…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.” .... (emphasis supplied)  CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) (Bom)(HC) (Refer Page No 101-106 of the legal paperbook 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 (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. An…

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT, Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 941/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…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.” .... (emphasis supplied)  CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) (Bom)(HC) (Refer Page No 101-106 of the legal paperbook 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 (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. An…