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 366,470 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 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.

M/S. Jns Instruments Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1479/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year : 2011-12 Jns Instruments Ltd. Vs. Pr. Cit Gi-48, G.T. Karnal Road Central -2, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Pan Aaacj7034Q New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 263Section 92C

…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 (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 15 JNS Instruments Ltd. vs Pr.CIT examination of the records of any proceedings under this Act, he considers that any order pass…

Reliance Life Sciences P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-8, Mumbai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 533/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.533/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.534/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Cit - 8 Dhirubhai Ambani Life Sciences Centre, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बिाम/ R-282, Ttc Area Of Midc Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Thane Belapur Road, Rabale, Navi Mumbai-400 701 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcr-7594-L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Nimesh Vora-Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anand Mohan-Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 07/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 05/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 As Per The Provisions Of Section 263 Of Income Tax Act, 1961, The Revenue Authorities Namely Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax / Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Vested With The Supervisory Powers Of Suo-Moto Revision Of Any Order Passed By The Assessing Officer [Ao]. For The Said Purpose, The Appropriate Authority May Call For & Examine

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan-Ld. CIT-DR

Section 263

…Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). 1.2 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Vikas Polymers (supra), further observed that as regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993 203 ITR 108 (Bombay)], held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary 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" and thus it is clear that an order cannot be termed as "erroneous" unless it is not in accordance wi…

M/S Vimla Infrastructure (India) Private Limited, Raipur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Incometax-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/RPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 18/Rpr/2021) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80GSection 80I

…under s.263 of the Act as echoed in; (a) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) (b) CIT Vs. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) (c) CIT Vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (201 7) 395 ITR 1 (SC) (d) CIT Vs. Gabrial India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.HC) 10.7 It is next asserted that the instant case is not a case of lack of enquiry. The allegation of the PCIT is towards inadequacy in proper enquiry. The PCIT despite having direct and clinching evidence has not carried out even pointed out any particular error in the action of the AO and has not carried out even a minimal enquiry himsel…

Rameshwar Prasad Shringi, Gumanpura vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 10/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (Pr. CIT)

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

…g short enquiries or to go into the process of assessment again and again merely on the basis that more enquiry ought to have been ITA No. 10-JP-2021 Rameshwar Prasad Shringi vs. Pr. CIT, Udaipur conducted to find something. 12.3 In Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner (page 113): “ . . . From a rending of sub- section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suomotu 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 Incom…

M/S Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1070/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2013-14 M/s. Karnataka State Seeds Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Corporation Ltd., Income Tax, ‘Beeja Bhavan’, Bellary Road, Bengalurlu-4, Hebbal, Bangalore – 560 024. Bengaluru. PAN: AACCK 1985D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri L. Bharath, CA Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 02.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 20.09.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by th…

Talluri Srinivasulu, Nellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Nellore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 162/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2017-18 Talluri Srinivasulu, Nellore Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nellore. Pan – Aaupt9827G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad Revenue By: Shri Balakrishna Date Of Hearing: 07/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2021

For Appellant: Shri M.V. PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Balakrishna

Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Talluri Srinivasulu, Nellore Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nellore. PAN – AAUPT9827G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri M.V. Prasad Revenue by: Shri Balakrishna Date of hearing: 07/09/2021 Date of pronouncement: 17/09/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against Pr. CIT, Tirupati’s order dated 05/03/2021 for AY 2017-18 involving proceedings…

Annu Agrotech Private Limited, Kota vs. Pr.CIT, Udiaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Cuke Annu Agrotech Private Limited, Pr.Cit, S-47/48, S-47/48, Vs. Udaipur. Commercial Shops, Ipia 324005, Rajasthan, India. Pan No.: Aagca 5903 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Mahendra Gargieya(Adv.) & Shri Devang Gargieya (Itp) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15 /09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya(Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…fication which should have been made. 11. Supporting Case Laws on S. 263: 11.1 CIT v/s Rajasthan Financial Corporation (1996) 134 CTR 145 (Raj). (DPB 51-54) 11.2 CIT v/s Ganpat Ram Bishnoi (2005) 198 CTR (Raj) 546 (DPB 55-58) 11.3 Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom), 25 ITA 09/JP/2021_ Annu Agrotech P Ltd. Vs Pr.CIT 11.4 Elder IT Solutions (P.) Ltd. vs CIT [2015] 59 taxmann.com 232 (Mumbai - Trib.) 11.5 Rajmal Kanwar v. CIT-I [2017] 82 taxmann.com 119 (Jaipur - Trib.) 11.6 Abdul Hamid v. Income-tax Officer [2020] 117 taxmann.com 986 (Gauhati - Trib.) 11.7 CIT v/s Vikas Polymers 341 (2012) ITR 0537 (D…

Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (PCIT)-3, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 578/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 263

…Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). 1.2 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Vikas Polymers (supra), further observed that as regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993 203 ITR 108 (Bombay)], held with reference to Black's Law 3 M/s Reliance Industries Limited Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dictionary 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" and thus it is clear that an order canno…

Spectrum Venture Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1077/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rajnish K. Vohra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajeek Sahu, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Spectrum Venture The Pr. CIT-4, Pvt. Ltd., Room No.629, 6th Floor, 501/502, Aayakar Bhavan, Makhija Chambers Maharshi Karve Marg, Vs. Premises CSL, Mumbai - 400020 196, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050 PAN: AANCS6614C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Rajnish K. Vohra, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Rajeek Sahu, D.R. Date of Hearing : 23.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement :01.09.2021 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accou…

Mr. Akib Arif Patel, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 545/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Section 263Section 43C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Akib Arif Patel Vs. Principal Commissioner of 701, A Wing, Income Tax-20, Mumbai Fine Touch CHSL Piramal Chamber, 73, Souter Street Lal Baug Near Baby Garden Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Agripada, Mumbai-400 008 PAN/GIR No.ASNPP5176D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Revenue by Shri Rajeev Harit Date of Hearing 17/08/2021 Date of Pronouncement 30/ 08/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.545/Mum/2021 for A.Y.2015-…

The N M Petit Charity Fund, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Exem.) 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1918/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Us Challenging The Validity Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pcit Both On Technical Ground As Well As On Merits.

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…ction u/s.263 of the Act by trying to substitute his view in the place of view already taken by the ld. AO. Reliance in this regard is placed on the celebrated decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd., reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bom). In view of the aforesaid observations, the argument advanced by the ld. DR that approval of the Charity Commissioner is not relevant for the purpose of levy of capital gains tax under the Income Tax Act, stands dismissed. 3.16. Hence, we hold that the ld. AO having taken a possible view in the matter after making adequate and requisite en…

Misys Trade & Risk Management India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1800/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Misys Trade & The Acit, Risk Management India Circle-7(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No.573, 5Th Floor, 1302, Tower-3, Aayakar Bhavan, Indiabulls Finance Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Centre, Mumbai - 400020 Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaect1497K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nitessh Joshi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.11.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nitessh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT Vs. Max India Ltd (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). Also, support his drawn from the judgments of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) and CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd (1993)203 ITR 108 (Bom). Accordingly, not being able to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the view taken by the Pr.CIT that the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3), dated 23.12.2016 was erroneous insofar it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, we „set aside‟ his order and restore the order passed by the A.O. 11. The appeal filed by the assessee…

M/S. the India Cements Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle - 2 (1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 833/CHNY/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. S.Bharath,CITFor Respondent: 13.07.2021

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…Assessing Officer to make assessment . The power u/s.263 can only be exercised, when order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs.Gabriel India Ltd. reported in 203 ITR 108, has categorically held that conditions precedent for invoking provisions of section 263 is to order of the Assessing Officer must be erroneous and further by virtue of the order being erroneous is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. If the Assessing Officer is acting in accordance with 32 law and makes an assessment, it cannot be termed as…

M/S Active Tools (P). Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -II, Jalandhar

ITA 260/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 115Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 154Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

…ch a conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous. In such a case, it may be said that the order in question is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments: - a) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. GHABRIAL INDIA LTD. 203 ITR 108 (BOM.) b) MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 243 ITR 83 (SUPREME COURT) 20. That the Ld. AR had further submitted that in paras 5 and 6 of the impugned Order, Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar has observed “that position of law stands substantially altered with the inception of explanation 2 in section…

Sh. Gurbachan Singh Brar, Moga vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Moga

ITA 207/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 263(1)

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar Before : Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 204 to 205/Asr/2017 Assessment Year2010-11 V.S. ITO, Ward – 2 Smt Surinder Kaur Brar D/o. Sh. Pal Singh Moga C/o. Brar Motors, Moga Road Baghanpurana, Distt. Moga PAN:ACWPB4197M (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 206/Asr/2017 Assessment Year2010-11 V.S. ITO, Ward – 2 Sh. Santokh Singh Brar Prop. M/s. EssEss Filling Station Moga C/o. Brar Motors, Moga Road Baghanpurana, Distt. Moga PAN:ADBPB2312A (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 207/Asr/2017 Assessment Ye…

Sh. Santokh Singh Brar, Moga vs. ITO, Ward - 2, Moga

ITA 206/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 263(1)

Pinebridge Investments Capital India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Range-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 800/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Sahu, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…the year by placing reliance on various decisions as under: 1. CIT vs Chettinad Logiistics 9P) ltd (2017) 80 taxmann.com 221 (Madras) 2. Sunbeam Auto Ltd vs CIT (2011)(332 ITR 167) 3. Idea Cellular Ltd vs DOT (2008) 301 ITR 407 4. Max India Ltd vs CIT (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom HC) The submissions of the Assessee did niot find favour with the ld PCIT and he set aside the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 24.11.2017. 3 M/s. PineBridge Investments Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. The Ld. A.R. submitted before the bench that since the assesse was not having any exempt income during the year , no disallowance w…

Keva Frgrances Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 4 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 334/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Bhat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R

Section 115J

…(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT Vs. Max India Ltd (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). Also, support his drawn from the judgments of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) and CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd (1993)203 ITR 108 (Bom). Accordingly, not being able to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the view taken by the Pr.CIT that the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3), dated 19 ITA No.334/M/2020 & ors. M/s. Keva Fragrances P. Ltd. & ors. 23.12.2016 was erroneous insofar it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, we „set aside‟ his order and restore th…

Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT, -27, Mumbai

ITA 1603/MUM/2020[2016-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2016-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Shri Sanjay Agarwal The Pr.Cit-27 1001/02 Brindavan Terrace, Vs. Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, Deonar Farm Road, Deonar, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400088 Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No. Agepa6776B (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Dr. P. Daniel, A.R Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2021

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT D.R

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

…nt order on the said count in exercise of the powers that were vested with him u/s 263 of the Act. In support of his aforesaid claim the ld. A.R had relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Limited (1997) 203 ITR 108 (Bom). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that as observed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay, the CIT cannot seek revision of an order merely because he disagrees with the conclusion arrived at by the A.O. Our attention was also drawn to the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of ITO Vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 IT…

M/S Radhishwari Devlopers P Ltd, Indore vs. Pr CIT -2 Indore, Indore

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

ITA 493/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jul 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…on 263 is not one that depends on possibility or guess work, but it should actually be an error either of fact or of law. ACIT v. Technip Italy Spa 150 Taxman 13 (Delhi) Trib.), Pratap Footwear v. ACIT SOT 638 (Jabalpur) (Trib.). c. CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [203 ITR 108] Bom HC). From the aforesaid discussions it is clear that the order so passed by the learned Assessing Officer in the instant case cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not I accordance with law. Since, there is no issue in the order which can be said that the same is unsustainable in law and therefore, the first limb of section 263 i.e. the…