How many judgments cite CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.?

990 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 147, Section 143(2).

CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.

203 ITR 108High Court1993#43 most cited

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

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

990

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

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

Also reported as

71 Taxmann 585

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquiry malabar industrial section 263(1)lack of enquiry prejudicial to interest of revenue revision u/s 263 revision under section 263 assessment order erroneous erroneous and prejudicial section 263 section 26 non-application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.

Vivek Nathuram Gavhane, Pune vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Pune

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

ITA 849/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.849/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 69C

…enquiry” and “inadequate enquiry”. If there was enquiry even an inadequate that would be itself give no occasion to the Commissioner to exercise the power of revision u/s 263 as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bombay) and 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 the r…

Akashdeep Cloth Centre, Kannad vs. Principal CIT, Nashik

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 959/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: S/Shri Shubham N. Rathi and Ashutosh DhootFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69B

…in the said decision has held that where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views which is Act. 8. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. reported in (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), he submitted that the Commissioner cannot initiate proceedings with a view to starting fishing and roving enquiries in matters or orders which are already concluded. Such action will be against the well accepted policy of law that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings that stale issues should not be re-activated beyond…

Manmandir Cloth Centre, Kannad vs. PCIT, Nashik

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1012/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: S/Shri Shubham N. Rathi and Ashutosh DhootFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69B

ACIT, Circle, Gandhidham vs. Kutch District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Limited, Anjar

In the result, appeal find by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 212/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.212/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Acit, Circle, Kutch District Co-Operative बनाम Gandhidham Milk Producers Union Ltd. Vs. C.O. Apmc Premises, Versamedi Naka, Near Railway Crossing Anjar, Gujarat-37010 Pan : Aaaak9845N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Akshay Modi, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Modi, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…sment 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. "In Gabriel India Ltd. 71 Taxman 585/203 ITR 108 (Bombay), law on this Aspect was discussed in the following manner (page 1 13):- "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…

Surbhit Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2570/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram Sr. Adv.& Shri Shashi Bekkal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)

Section 147Section 263Section 41(1)

…llowing the claim of the assessee to which the ld.PCIT does not concur with as he holds a different view of the impugned issues. In this connection, reference is made to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) where the hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:- "An order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an ITO acting in accordance with law makes certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because according to him the order should have been written more elaborately…

Sh. Sukhvinder Singh, Kanpur vs. Pr CIT, Central, Kanpur

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 190/LKW/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 263

…f the Revenue. If one of the absent, Hon'ble Supreme Court held, i.e. if the order of the Assessing Officer is either not erroneous or to the prejudicial to the Revenue, re-cours cannot be had to Section 263 of the Act. In the case of CIT v Gabriel India Ltd, 203 ITR 108 (Bom): ITA Nos.190 & 191/LKW/2020 Page 27 of 30 it was held by Hon'ble High Court that substitution of judgment of Commissioner for that of the Assessing Officer is not permissible under section 263 of the Act, unless decision of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be termed as erroneous unless which…

Sanjeev Kumar Rana, Ropar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 706/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.706/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Sanjeev Kumar Rana Pr. Cit बनाम/ Vs. 93-Kiln Area, Nangal Ropar Sector -17E (Punjab) 140124. Chandigarh "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aespk-7126-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca)(Virtual) –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit)(Virtual) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1 (Pr. Cit) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Vide Impugned Order Dated 10-05-2023 Proposing Revision Of An Assessment As Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 12-10-2017. 2. Briefly Stated, The Assessee Was Assessed U/S 143(3) On 12-10-2017 Wherein The Income Of The Assessee Was Determined At Rs.8.79 Lacs After

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA)(Virtual) –Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT)(Virtual) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 68

…321 ITR 92). The ratio of all these decisions is that where two views are possible and AO has preferred one view against another view, order could not be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 8. In the case of Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108), Hon’ble Bombay High Court observed that from a reading of sub-section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suo-motu revision can be exercised by revisionary authority 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 "erroneous in so far…

Wns Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3762/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriwns Global Services Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax-6 Plant 11, Gate No. 4, Godrej Room No. 501, 5Th Floor & Boyce Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Piroshanagar, Lbs Marg, Karve Road, Mumbai Vikhroli West, Mumbai 400020. 400079 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacw2598L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Ajit Shah & Ms. Hetal SanganiFor Respondent: Shri. Arun Kanti Datta – CIT DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

…ome of the decisions cited by ld. AR wherein the issue stands decided in favour of the assessee are as under: “a) PCIT v. Cartier Leafin (P.) Ltd. v. [2019] 112 taxmann.com 63 (Bom) SLP dismissed 146 taxmann.com 281 (SC) b) CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd (1993) (203 ITR 108) (Bom) c) CIT Vs. Kiran Hirji Shah (2015) (231 Taxman 670) (Bom) d) Aditi Developers Vs. ACIT (2012) (49 SOT 664) (Mumbai ITAT) e) MOIL Ltd. v. CIT [2017] 396 ITR 244 (Bom) (Para 5) f) PCIT v. Ramchandra Naidu [2017] 85 taxmann.com 127 (Bom) (Para 8)” 4.4 Reliance has also been placed on various decisions in support of its claim that deduction u…

Rivaara Labs Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3640/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad, (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35DSection 37Section 37(1)

…Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabrial आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण INCOME विष्यक्ष सुलभ सत्वर न्याव। IMPARTIAL, EASY AND SPEEDY JUSTICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Page | 15 ITA No. 3640/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2021-22 Rivaara Labs Private Limited India Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) where the hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:- "An order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an ITO acting in accordance with law makes assessment, the assessment order should be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. This section does not visualise case of substitution of judgment of the Commis…

Ceigall India Limited, Ludhiana vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 540/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, CIT, DR(Virtual)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ies with supporting evidence. 3.2 The AO applied his mind and passed a reasoned order. Once due enquiries have been made, the PCIT cannot substitute his judgment. Reliance was placed on Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83, SC), Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108, Bom), V-Con Integrated Solutions (476 ITR 526, SC, 2025) and PCIT v. Aculife Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (477 ITR 398, SC, 2025). 3.3 The AR submitted that the alleged difference noted by PCIT is misconceived. The assessee paid professional fees of Rs.15.98 crores on which TDS of Rs.1.59 crores was deducted u/s 194J. The balance amount shown under “Le…

Diwantham Tollway Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Mubmai

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 3711/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Diwantham Tollway Private Limited Pcit – 6, Mumbai Unit No. 603B, 6Th Floor, Godrej Bkkc, Room No. 501, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Plot No. C-68, G Block, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400051. [Pan: Aagcd6193G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 254(1)Section 263Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Physical hearing) Diwantham Tollway Private Limited PCIT – 6, Mumbai Unit No. 603B, 6th Floor, Godrej BKKC, Room No. 501, 5th Floor, Aayakar Vs Plot No. C-68, G Block, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400051. [PAN: AAGCD6193G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Vijay Mehta CA / AR Revenue by Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR Date of Institution 27.05.2025 Date of hearing 21.08.2025 Date of pron…

Ram Baburao Salve, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 17(3)(!), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5370/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agarwal & Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ram Baburao Salve Vs. ITO Wd 17(3)(1), 17/18, Vyapar Bhuvan P. Mumbai. D’Mello Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400009. PAN/GIR No. AACPS5498L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Dharan Gandhi – Advocate Revenue by Shri Umashankar Prasad - CIT DR Date of Hearing 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned order d…

Sharmanji Yarns Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 706/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar (CA) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur(CIT) – Ld. DR

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

…21 ITR 92). The ratio of all these decisions is that where two views are possible and AO has preferred one view against another view, order could not be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 15. In the case of Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108), Hon’ble Bombay High Court observed that from a reading of sub-section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suo-motu revision can be exercised by revisionary authority 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 "erroneous in so far…

Pharmanza Herbal Private Limited, Dharmaj vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara-1, Vaodara

ITA 749/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…expenditure in Form 3CL, thereby causing prejudice to the interests of the Revenue. Accordingly, invoking powers under section 263 of the Act, and following judicial precedents including Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) and CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom.), the Pr. CIT held that the assessment order dated 16.04.2021 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 7. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee primarily reiterated the submissions made before P…

Amber Enterprises India Limited, Rajpura, Punjab vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, Punjab

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 554/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, CIT, DR (Virtual)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 35Section 35(1)(i)

…d that the AO conducted full enquiry and adopted a plausible view. Hence, the order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial. Reliance is placed on: Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83, SC) – Twin conditions must  co-exist. CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108, Bom HC) – When AO makes  enquiries and takes a view, revision u/s 263 is not permissible. PCIT v. V-Con Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (P&H HC, 12.09.2024) – Mere  allegation of inadequate enquiry is not enough. 6.4. In addition to the above the Ld. AR had submitted that the only reason cited by the PCIT is non-submission of Form 3CL by DSIR.…

Chunilal Mahadevbhai Sanja, Morbi vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 279/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 279/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Chunilal Mahadevbhai Sanja, Vs. The Pcit-1 C/O M/S. Nobel Cera Coat, Rajkot At-Jambudia, Morbi-363642 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acnpp7711N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 263

…ome adverse evidence, the mere direction to make inquiries only amounts to roving and fishing inquiries which are not permissible under the law.In this regard, reference may be made to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court judgement in the case of Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) wherein it was held as under: "The Commissioner cannot initiate proceedings with a view to starting fishing and roving enquiries in matters or orders which are already concluded. Such action will be against the well-accepted policy of law that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated…

Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3293/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

…n of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous ". 16 Colgate-Palmolive (India) Limited AY 2018-19 13. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. reported in [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), while dealing with identical issue has held as under:- 13. We, therefore, hold that in order to exercise power under sub-section (1) of section 263 of the Act there must be material before the Commissioner to consider that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Rev…

Dr. Pratap Pandhiranath Patil, Pune vs. PCIT - 2, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 1026/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Iyer and Shri Siddhant G. BiswasFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

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

…book including that of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. The Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.). 7 Dr. Pratap Pandharinath Patil 11. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of ld. PCIT. 12. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We will first take up the issue raised by the assessee that ld. PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Ac…

Gajanand Financial Consultancy Private Limited, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 126/NAG/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…gs response showing the details submitted by assessee.” 7. The learned A.R. for the assessee in support of his arguments relied on the following case laws, the copies of which are placed on record by way of Paper Book:– “i) CIT v/s Gabrial India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Mum. HC); ii) CIT v/s Arvind Jewellers(2003) 259 ITR 0502 (Guj. HC); iii) CIT v/s Max India Ltd. (2004) 268 ITR 0128 (P&H HC); iv) Smt. Lila Choudhury -Vs.-Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. (2007) 289 ITR 0226 (Gau. HC); v) Chenai Finance Co. Ltd. -Vs.-Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2004) 89 TTJ 0591 (Hyd. ITAT); vi) Ashok Leyland Financ…

Azb and Partner, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

ITA 4105/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Shri VinayakFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 195Section 263

…are part of the assessment records so the provisions of section 263 cannot be invoked, even if positive satisfaction is not recorded in the assessment order. The Ld.AR relied on the order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) where it was held that, “14. We may now examine the facts of the present case in the light of the powers of the Commissioner set out above. The ITO 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 letter in writing. All these…