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.

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 108)

Ashokbhai Narshibhai Patel, Surat vs. PCIT(Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 62/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…ing and roving enquiry, wrongly treated on par with lack of enquiry, which is different from inadequate enquiry, so that even on this ground, revision was not justified, as held by the Hon`ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom). 18. We note that Ld. Pr. C.I.T. on analysis of assessment records derived satisfaction for issuing the impugned show-cause notice u/s 263 of the Act. The expression ‘record’ as used in section 263 of the Act is comprehensive enough to include the whole record of evidence on which the original assessment order is based. At the same time, if…

Ashokbhai Narshibhai Patel, Surat vs. PCIT(Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 61/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…ing and roving enquiry, wrongly treated on par with lack of enquiry, which is different from inadequate enquiry, so that even on this ground, revision was not justified, as held by the Hon`ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom). 18. We note that Ld. Pr. C.I.T. on analysis of assessment records derived satisfaction for issuing the impugned show-cause notice u/s 263 of the Act. The expression ‘record’ as used in section 263 of the Act is comprehensive enough to include the whole record of evidence on which the original assessment order is based. At the same time, if…

Ashokbhai Narshibhai Patel, Surat vs. PCIT(Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 60/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…ing and roving enquiry, wrongly treated on par with lack of enquiry, which is different from inadequate enquiry, so that even on this ground, revision was not justified, as held by the Hon`ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom). 18. We note that Ld. Pr. C.I.T. on analysis of assessment records derived satisfaction for issuing the impugned show-cause notice u/s 263 of the Act. The expression ‘record’ as used in section 263 of the Act is comprehensive enough to include the whole record of evidence on which the original assessment order is based. At the same time, if…

Hilton Group, Surat vs. PCIT(Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 59/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…ing and roving enquiry, wrongly treated on par with lack of enquiry, which is different from inadequate enquiry, so that even on this ground, revision was not justified, as held by the Hon`ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom). 18. We note that Ld. Pr. C.I.T. on analysis of assessment records derived satisfaction for issuing the impugned show-cause notice u/s 263 of the Act. The expression ‘record’ as used in section 263 of the Act is comprehensive enough to include the whole record of evidence on which the original assessment order is based. At the same time, if…

Hilton Group, Surat vs. PCIT, (Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 58/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…ing and roving enquiry, wrongly treated on par with lack of enquiry, which is different from inadequate enquiry, so that even on this ground, revision was not justified, as held by the Hon`ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom). 18. We note that Ld. Pr. C.I.T. on analysis of assessment records derived satisfaction for issuing the impugned show-cause notice u/s 263 of the Act. The expression ‘record’ as used in section 263 of the Act is comprehensive enough to include the whole record of evidence on which the original assessment order is based. At the same time, if…

Ramesh Kumar Gordhan Kathiriya, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 192/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…ing and roving enquiry, wrongly treated on par with lack of enquiry, which is different from inadequate enquiry, so that even on this ground, revision was not justified, as held by the Hon`ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom). 18. We note that Ld. Pr. C.I.T. on analysis of assessment records derived satisfaction for issuing the impugned show-cause notice u/s 263 of the Act. The expression ‘record’ as used in section 263 of the Act is comprehensive enough to include the whole record of evidence on which the original assessment order is based. At the same time, if…

Ramesh Kumar Gordhan Kathiriya, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 191/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…ing and roving enquiry, wrongly treated on par with lack of enquiry, which is different from inadequate enquiry, so that even on this ground, revision was not justified, as held by the Hon`ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom). 18. We note that Ld. Pr. C.I.T. on analysis of assessment records derived satisfaction for issuing the impugned show-cause notice u/s 263 of the Act. The expression ‘record’ as used in section 263 of the Act is comprehensive enough to include the whole record of evidence on which the original assessment order is based. At the same time, if…

Shergil Harjit, Ahmednagar vs. Pr Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.170/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shergil Harjit, 6, Penton Road, Opp. Moti Buag, Officer’S Enclave, Ahmednagar Camp, Ahmednagar- 414002. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Evhps1971N बनाम / V/S. Pr. Cit-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Prasad Bhandari Revenue By : Shri Subhakant Sahu सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2022 आदेश / Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-1, Pune Dated 17.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal On Record :- “1. On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case, Respected Pcit – Pune -1 Erred Passing The Impugned Revision Order Under Section 263 As The Original Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Was Passed After Full Satisfaction Of The Ld. Assessing Officer. Hence, The Impugned Order Under Section 263 May Please Be Squashed. 2. On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case, Respected Pcit, Pune -1 Erred Passing The Impugned Revision Order Under Section 263 Ex- Parte Inspite Of Duly Filed Submissions By The Assessee Before Time. Thus, The Order Passed Without Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee May Please Be Treated As Bad In Law & Hence, The Impugned Order Under Section 263 May Please Be Squashed. 3. The Appellate Craves The Permission To Add, Amend, Modify, Alter, Revise, Substitute, Delete Any Or All Grounds Of The Appeal, If Deemed Necessary At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Subhakant Sahu

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 68Section 69

…icer in such scenario the order of the assessment cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bombay) which was followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) and in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 (Delhi). The relevant paragraphs of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (supra) are extracted hereunder :- “We have considered…

Concern India Foundation, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Exem.) - 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1919/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…s. Concern India Foundation u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT merely because he is not in agreement with the said view. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd., reported in 203 ITR 108 and in case of Nirav Modi reported in 390 ITR 292. Moreover from the perusal of the entire order of the ld. PCIT, we find that nowhere the ld. PCIT had stated that assessee had not furnished any details before the ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings and that the such details were incorrect thereby making the order of the ld. AO err…

Ashutosh Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271BSection 44ASection 54E

…ITO 94 TTJ 614(Jp). Where in held that Deep investigation is outside of the preview of assessment procedure”. And also held there is no case laws which say for deep investigations Because there is no limit of deep investigation. Also refer Gaberial India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom). That is why Hon’ble SC held in Malabar Fisheries Industries Ltd. 243 ITR 82 (SC) that in each and every type of mistake/ error cannot be made a basis to invoke Sec.263. The case laws available on the subject on this aspect, are distinguishable in as much as those were the cases where no inquiries at all (or very minor reflecting from a sho…

Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd, Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 195/CTK/2019[204-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

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

…d really amount to conferring some kind of an appellate power in the revisional authority. This is a course of action that must be desisted from …… [Emphasis Supplied] • The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. reported in [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay) has categorically held that: (10. The power of suo motu revision under sub-sectif1n (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 re vision under this sub-section, viz., (i) the…

M/S- Sbep-Gril(Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 194/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

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

…d really amount to conferring some kind of an appellate power in the revisional authority. This is a course of action that must be desisted from …… [Emphasis Supplied] • The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. reported in [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay) has categorically held that: (10. The power of suo motu revision under sub-sectif1n (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 re vision under this sub-section, viz., (i) the…

M/S- Rawat Balaji (Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Prilncipal, CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 193/CTK/2019[204-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

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

…d really amount to conferring some kind of an appellate power in the revisional authority. This is a course of action that must be desisted from …… [Emphasis Supplied] • The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. reported in [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay) has categorically held that: (10. The power of suo motu revision under sub-sectif1n (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 re vision under this sub-section, viz., (i) the…

Kaushalya Dealers (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 419/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Kaushalya Dealers Pvt. Ito, Ward-4(4), Kolkata Ltd. 498/H/4, Karl Mark Vs. Sarani, Kolkata – 700 023. Pan: Aadck8028Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit (Dr). Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2021 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revisionary Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 29.05.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Pcit] Relevant To Ay 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Revisionary Jurisdiction Exercised By Ld. Pcit U/S 263 Of The Act & Also The Consequent Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act On The Ground That Revisionary Jurisdiction As Well As The Consequent Order Is Invalid & Nullity As Necessary Conditions Envisaged In Section 263 Of The Act Have Not Been Satisfied Before Invoking The Revisionary Jurisdiction. The Fact In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed A Return Of Income On 28.09.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 69,040/- Which Was Processed U/S 2 Kaushalya Dealers (P) Ltd. 143(1) Of The Act. Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Assessment Was Framed Vide Order Dated 05.09.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessing The Income At Rs. 69,040/- After Taking Into Account The Various Contentions/Replies Of The Assessee Filed During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sudipta Guha, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 50C

…uisite evidences are on records and same were duly examined by the AO, then the order of the AO was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue after following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108(Bom) the operative part whereof is as under: 15. We may now examine the facts of the present case in the light of the powers of the Commissioner set out above. The Income-tax Officer in this case had made enquiries in regard to the nature of the expenditure incurred by the assessee. The assessee had given detailed explanation in that regard by a…

Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Burla vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 141/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.141/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Jagruti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, Dated 21.04.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That The Notice Issued & Order Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sambalpur (Pr. Cit) Is Unjustified, Arbitrary, Excessive, Contrary To Evidences & Bad In Law. 2. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Pr. Cit Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Assuming Jurisdiction In Issuing The Notice & Passing The Order U/S.263 Of The Act, More So When The Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Act Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. 3. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Pr. Cit Has Further Erred In Law & In Facts In Assuming Jurisdiction In Issuing The Notice & Passing The Order U/S.263 Of The Act, As The Subject Matter Of Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Act Were Duly Considered By The Ld. Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings & The Assessment Order Was Passed After Making All The Enquiries & Verification & With Due Application Of Mind.

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…by the application of the relevant statue, on an incorrect or incomplete interpretation, a lesser tax than what was just been imposed. In support of our contention your honour may kindly take note of the following judgements: - CIT v Gabriel India Ltd [1973] 203 ITR 108 (Bom). - Dhruv N Shah V DCIT [2005] 273 ITR (Bom. Trib.) Further, in the case CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2009] 289 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (HC), the Court is of the view that "If no inquiry at all was made by the AO at the time of assessment only then section 263 invokable." b. Further, it will be pertinent to take note of the Explanation-2 to the sect…

Sanaa Ashiqali Raval, Mumbaui vs. Rp. CIT - 19, Mumbai

ITA 318/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansanaa Ashiqali Raval, Flat No.42, 2Nd Floor, Ajay Apartment, 25, Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026 Pan: Aihpr7427D ............ Appellant Vs. Pr. Cit-19 Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 ............ Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Hero Rai, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Amrish Bedio, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…m 2021- Sanaa Ashiqali Raval version of the assessee and found it to be plausible. For the above said purposes, the ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: 1. 395 ITR 1 (SC) CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex 2. 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT v Max India Ltd. 3. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT v Gabriel India Ltd. 4. 305 CTR 486 (Bom) CIT v Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. 5. 387 ITR 691 (Bom) CIT v Gera Development P Ltd. 6. 372 ITR 303 (Bom) CIT v Fine Jewellery India Ltd. 7. 301 ITR 407 (Bom) Idea Cellular Ltd. v DCIT 8. 323 ITR 206 (Bom) CIT v Development Credit Bank Ltd 7. The ld. AR had further submitted that the PCIT…

M/S. Shree Shivalingeshwara Arecanut Traders, Shivamogga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore

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

ITA 142/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT (DR OSD)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 263

…The Ld A.R further submitted that Ld PCIT cannot substitute his views to the plausible view taken by the AO. In support of this contention, he placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd (203 ITR 108)(Bom). In any case, the AO has taken a plausible view on this matter and hence the assessment order cannot be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. In support of this proposition, he placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co Ltd vs. CIT (243 ITR 83)…

M/S. Shree Shivalingeshwara Arecanut Traders, Shivamogga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore

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

ITA 141/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT (DR OSD)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 263

…The Ld A.R further submitted that Ld PCIT cannot substitute his views to the plausible view taken by the AO. In support of this contention, he placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd (203 ITR 108)(Bom). In any case, the AO has taken a plausible view on this matter and hence the assessment order cannot be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. In support of this proposition, he placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co Ltd vs. CIT (243 ITR 83)…

M/S. Shree Shivalingeshwara Arecanut Traders, Shivamogga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore

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

ITA 140/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT (DR OSD)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 263

…The Ld A.R further submitted that Ld PCIT cannot substitute his views to the plausible view taken by the AO. In support of this contention, he placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd (203 ITR 108)(Bom). In any case, the AO has taken a plausible view on this matter and hence the assessment order cannot be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. In support of this proposition, he placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co Ltd vs. CIT (243 ITR 83)…

M/S. Doddanna Traders, Shivamogga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore

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

ITA 139/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 263

…The Ld A.R further submitted that Ld PCIT cannot substitute his views to the plausible view taken by the AO. In support of this contention, he placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd (203 ITR 108)(Bom). 7. On the contrary, the Ld D.R supported the orders passed by Ld PCIT. 8. We heard the parties and perused the record. The scope of revision proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act was examined by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. V CIT (321 ITR 92) by taking into account the law laid down by the…

CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.

Ashokbhai Narshibhai Patel, Surat vs. PCIT(Central), Surat

Ashokbhai Narshibhai Patel, Surat vs. PCIT(Central), Surat

Ashokbhai Narshibhai Patel, Surat vs. PCIT(Central), Surat

Hilton Group, Surat vs. PCIT(Central), Surat

Hilton Group, Surat vs. PCIT, (Central), Surat

Ramesh Kumar Gordhan Kathiriya, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

Ramesh Kumar Gordhan Kathiriya, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

Shergil Harjit, Ahmednagar vs. Pr Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Pune

Concern India Foundation, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Exem.) - 1(1), Mumbai

Ashutosh Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur

Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd, Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

M/S- Sbep-Gril(Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

M/S- Rawat Balaji (Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Prilncipal, CIT, Sambalpur

Kaushalya Dealers (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Kolkata

Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Burla vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur

Sanaa Ashiqali Raval, Mumbaui vs. Rp. CIT - 19, Mumbai

M/S. Shree Shivalingeshwara Arecanut Traders, Shivamogga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore

M/S. Shree Shivalingeshwara Arecanut Traders, Shivamogga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore

M/S. Shree Shivalingeshwara Arecanut Traders, Shivamogga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore

M/S. Doddanna Traders, Shivamogga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore