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.

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 138/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

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…

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 137/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

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…

M/S. Adihemshree Financial, I, Nao vs. Pr. CIT - 19, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 326/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2021AY 2015-16
Section 263

…bstitute his view in place of the view already taken by the ld. AO by invoking his revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd., reported in 203 ITR 108 and Nirav Modi reported in 390 ITR 292. 3.8. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we have no hesitation in quashing the revision order passed u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 12 M/s. Adihemshree Financial 4.…

M/S R.K. Jain Infra Projects P Ltd, Delhi vs. Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-7, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 823/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C. AFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen [CIT] – D. R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements. 1. CIT vs AmritlalBhogilal& Co.34 ITR 130 (SC) 2. CIT vs Smt. AnnapoornammaChandershekhar 17 Com 120 (Kar H.C.) 3. Gabriel India Limited, 203 ITR 108 (Bombay H.C.) 4. CIT vs Nirav Modi,390 ITR 292 (Bombay H.C.) 5. CIT vs Max India Ltd.295 ITR 282 (SC) 6. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) 7.CIT vs Vodafone Essar South Ltd., 212 Taxman 184 (Del) (affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CC 9308/2013). 15. On the other hand, the Ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the ld.…

Troikaa Pharmaceuticlas Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 55/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Nov 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) 10. Commissioner of Income Tax. V. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 11. CIT vs. Ms. Bina Indrakumar (2015) 61 taxmann.com 11 (2015) 370 ITR 552 12. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (HC Bombay) 13. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vikas Polymers (2003) 341 ITR 537 (HC Delhi) 7.1 During the course of appellate proceedings before us on the issue of depreciation on assets it was submitted that this issue was also duly considered during the course of original assessment proceedings in the reply of the assessee dated 24th Sep, 2018.…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar vs. CIT, Hisar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1462/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. Najmi, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(2)Section 80

…Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H) • CIT v. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1(SC) • Vimgi Investment (P) Limited 290 ITR 505 (Del) • CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited: 203 ITR 108 (Bom)- • In the light of the aforesaid settled legal position, re- assessment order, is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 15 ITA No.1462.Del.2016 Jindal Steel & Power Limited A mere suspicion/ statement that the assessment order seems to be erroneous/ prejudicial is not sufficient for a valid action under secti…

Bee Pee Textiles, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 18, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 2485/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Bee Pee Textiles Vs. Pr. Cit – 18, 384-F, Room No. 4,5 &6 Room No. 601, 6Th Dhabholkar, Wadi, Floor, Earnest House, Kalbadevi, Mumbai – Nariman Point, 4000024. Mumbai – 400021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaffb3061R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Mukesh Advani. Ar Respondent By : Shri Rahul Raman. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2021 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– 18, Mumbai Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Advani. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40Section 40b

…Assessing Officer and therefore, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax cannot re-examine the issues already inquired into by the Assessing Officer. Reliance is also placed on the Bombay High Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108]. The power u/s 263 is to be exercised in the case of "no inquiry" and not in the case of "inadequate inquiry" or "lack of inquiry" . In light of the above said facts & circumstances of the case, we pray before your honours to delete the order which is passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act. Bee Pee Textiles, Mumbai 2. The brief facts of the ca…

M/S Kay Em Kay Industries, Ludhiana vs. Pr.CIT-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.27/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S Kay Em Kay Industries, Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, बनाम 13-H, Textile Colony, Ludhiana Ludhiana

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Dwjee Dadabhoy and Co. Vs. SP Jain 31 ITR 872(Cal), Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Narayana Pal 98 ITR 422 (Karn.) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd.203 ITR 108(Bom) submitted that since the order passed by the Ld. PCIT is not in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Courts referred above, the same is liable to be set aside. ITA No.27-Chd-2021- M/s Kay Em Kay Industries, Ludhiana 4 5. On the other hand, the Ld. departmental representative DR supportin…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 37/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…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…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palasana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 36/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…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…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palsana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 35/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…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…

Satyam Textile Park, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 91/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263Section 271DSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.90 & 91/SRT/2021 (AY 2016-17 & 2017-18) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Satyam Textile Park, The Principal Block No.430,Moje Hathoda, Commissioner of Income Vs TA-Magrol, Surat – 394380. Tax (Central), Surat. PAN: ACXFS 1576 L Assessee / appellant Revenue /respondent Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 25.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMB…

Satyam Textile Park, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 90/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263Section 271DSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.90 & 91/SRT/2021 (AY 2016-17 & 2017-18) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Satyam Textile Park, The Principal Block No.430,Moje Hathoda, Commissioner of Income Vs TA-Magrol, Surat – 394380. Tax (Central), Surat. PAN: ACXFS 1576 L Assessee / appellant Revenue /respondent Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 25.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMB…

Rajhans Metals, Na

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

ITA 933/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Oct 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(C)

…ld be cumulatively satisfied by the ld. PCIT. The reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT v/s. Minalben S. Parikh – 215 ITR 81 (Guj.) and the decision of Hon`ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v/s Gabriel India Ltd. – 203 ITR 108 (Bom.). In this case it was held that “there must be material before commissioner to satisfy him, prima facie, that the two requisites are present. Power cannot be exercised at the whims and caprice of the commissioner”. It has been held in the case of CIT v/s Amit Corporation – Tax Appeal No. 2583 of 2010 (Guj.) that “When, during the course of…

Antariksh Realtors P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-12, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1626/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

Section 143(3)Section 263

…1 ITA 1626/Mum/2020 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR (VICE PRESIDENT) AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. No.1626/Mum/2020 (Assessment year 2015-16) Antariksh Realtors Private Limited vs The Income-tax Officer-12(1)(2), 23, 5th Floor, Dheeraj Plaza, Hill Road Mumbai Bandra (West), Mumbai-400 050 PAN : AAKCS5379G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Shreyash Shah (AR) & Shri Kunal Shah & Shri Ramesh Vora (AR) Respondent by Shri Rajeev Harit [CIT(DR)] Date of hearing 27-07-2021 Date of pronouncement 22-10-2021 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey (JM) Captioned…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 94/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…Nirma Chemicals Works. Pvt. Ltd. [309 STR 0067] (Guj HC),  Rayon Silk Mills vs. CIT(A) [221 ITR 0155] (Guj HC),PCIT vs. Shreeji Prints Pvt. Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 828 of 2019] (Guj),,  CIT vs. Nirav Modi [390 ITR 0292 (Bom. HC)],  CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. [203 ITR 108(Bom),  Moil Ltd. vs CIT [ 81 taxmann.com 420 (Bom. HC)]’  CIT vs. Fine Jewellery India Ltd. [55 texmann.com 514 ] (Bom HC),  A n i l k u m a r S h a r m a [335 ITR 0083] (Delhi HC),  ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Limited [343 ITR 329](Dei HC)],  CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [189 Taxman 0436 (Del.)],  PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 93/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…Nirma Chemicals Works. Pvt. Ltd. [309 STR 0067] (Guj HC),  Rayon Silk Mills vs. CIT(A) [221 ITR 0155] (Guj HC),PCIT vs. Shreeji Prints Pvt. Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 828 of 2019] (Guj),,  CIT vs. Nirav Modi [390 ITR 0292 (Bom. HC)],  CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. [203 ITR 108(Bom),  Moil Ltd. vs CIT [ 81 taxmann.com 420 (Bom. HC)]’  CIT vs. Fine Jewellery India Ltd. [55 texmann.com 514 ] (Bom HC),  A n i l k u m a r S h a r m a [335 ITR 0083] (Delhi HC),  ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Limited [343 ITR 329](Dei HC)],  CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [189 Taxman 0436 (Del.)],  PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 92/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…Nirma Chemicals Works. Pvt. Ltd. [309 STR 0067] (Guj HC),  Rayon Silk Mills vs. CIT(A) [221 ITR 0155] (Guj HC),PCIT vs. Shreeji Prints Pvt. Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 828 of 2019] (Guj),,  CIT vs. Nirav Modi [390 ITR 0292 (Bom. HC)],  CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. [203 ITR 108(Bom),  Moil Ltd. vs CIT [ 81 taxmann.com 420 (Bom. HC)]’  CIT vs. Fine Jewellery India Ltd. [55 texmann.com 514 ] (Bom HC),  A n i l k u m a r S h a r m a [335 ITR 0083] (Delhi HC),  ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Limited [343 ITR 329](Dei HC)],  CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [189 Taxman 0436 (Del.)],  PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd…

Royal Western India Turf Club, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 640/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(2)

…Electronics India (P.) Ltd. Vs. PCIT, [2016] 388 ITR 135 (All.) 5 ITA 640/Mum/2021 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 Devel…

Kapil Mehta, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central)-3, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 533/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: The Assessing Officer

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 263(1)

…by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of “lack of inquiry” that such a course of action would be open. In Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 Kapil Mehta vs. PCIT (Bom), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner:- “... 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 b…