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.

Shrimati Ravinder Bawa, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 703/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…er and there are two possible views, then also the revisional Commissioner cannot exercise the power for provision under section 263. For the above said purposes we rely upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the matter of C.I.T. Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) has held that: “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 a detailed explanation in that regard by a letter in writing. All these were part of the record of the case. Evidently, claim was allowed by the Income tax Officer on being satisf…

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Desai (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ed during the course of assessment proceedings. [Para 5.1, Page 6-7 of the Order]. Principle 5 - Order u/s 263 cannot be passed to make roving queries on the basis of whims or surmises of the revising authority. Refer- (1) CIT –vs.- Gabrial India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom): It was held that the CIT 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 beyond a particu…

M/S Alimaan Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT ( Exemption), Mumbai

ITA 1689/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.1689 /Mum/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Alimaan Charitable Commissioner Of Income Trust, 206, Rewa Chambers, Vs. Tax (Exemptions),R. No. New Marine Lines, 617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Mumbai – 400 020 Chambers, Lal Baug,Parel,Mumbai – 400 012 Pan No. Aaata2536P (Assessee ) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Firojandhyaruzina, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing: 28/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2021

For Appellant: Shri FirojAndhyaruzina, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT D.R

Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ther submitted by the ld. A.R that the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Shree Bhagwati Enterprises Vs. PCIT, Mumbai ITA No. 525/Mum/2016, dated 07.07.2017 by drawing support from the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), had observed, that an order to be erroneous should be one which was not in accordance with the law or had been passed by the A.O without making any enquiry in undue haste. Drawing support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that in a case where two views are possible and the A.O had taken one of the…

Bharti Airtel Ltd (Formerly Bharti Broadband Ltd), New Delhi vs. Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3899/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla[A.Y 2004-05]

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 148Section 16Section 263Section 28Section 41(1)

…ssion, we hold that the assumption of jurisdiction by the DIT u/s 263 of the Act is not in accordance with law. We, therefore, quash the same and grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.” 18. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108 has held as under: “The power of suo motu revision under subsection (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 revision under this sub- section, viz., (i) the order is erroneous; (ii)…

Amitanil Modi (HUF), Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 33, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.03/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Amitanil Modi (Huf) बिधम/ Pr.Cit-33 8Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan B-401, Subh Shanti Complex Vs. M.B.Road, Dhanukar Wadi Bkc, Bandra(E) Kandivali(W) Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahha5667G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajiv Harit, Cit(Dr) Assessee By: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29/03/2019 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -33, Mumbai In View Of Section 263 Of The I.T.Act, 1961 Relevant To The A.Y.2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. “ The Hon.Pr..Cit Erred In Holding The Order Framed By The Ld.Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T.Act, 1961 On 07.12.2016, To Be Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Accordingly The Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Hon.Pr.Cit U/S 263 Of The I.T.Act, 1961 Was Not Valid & Justified By Law.

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…of the Act is liable to be set aside. In support of these contentions the Ld. AR for the assessee has placed reliance on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Mody, 390 ITR 292 (Bom), CIT vs Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200 (SC) and CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and Maharashtra Engineering vs PCIT Kolhapur in ITA No.859/Pun/2018. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has refuted the said contention and argued that the provisions u/s 263 has rightly been invoked by the PCIT and in support of his contentions the Ld. DR has placed reliance on the decision of Chandigarh Bench in the case of Sphinx Precision Lt…

Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 386/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…5 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha Bansal, Sh Pankaj Bansal, Sh Basant Bansal And Sh Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon. surmises in the absence of any enquiry having been made by him.” 22.1. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs., Gabriel India Ltd., [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) held as under : “Held, that 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 a detailed explanation in that regard by a letter in writing. All these were part of the record of the case. Evidently, the claim was allowed by the Income-tax Offic…

Shri Basant Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 385/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

Pankaj Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 384/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

Abha Bansal, Gurgaon vs. PCIT, Central, Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 383/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

M/S Nilkanth Stone Industries, Valsad vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 386/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.386/Srt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Nilkanth Stone Industries, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Shop No.A-1/2/3, Nilkanth Of Income Tax, Valsad. Residency, B/H Old Jakarta Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad. [Pan: Aajfn 5653 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Surji Chheda - Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 27.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (Act) By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Pcit” Passed Under Section 263 Of Income-Tax Act (Act) Dated 27.03.2018, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Vide His Application Dated 16.08.2018 Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit Has Erred In Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Which Was Without Jurisdiction & The Cit Erred In Holding That The Assessment Order Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue On All Issues Discussed In Revision Order & Has Erred In Setting It Aside For Fresh

Section 253Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, Hon'ble JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, Hon'ble ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.386/SRT/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Nilkanth Stone Industries, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Shop No.a-1/2/3, Nilkanth of Income Tax, Valsad. Residency, B/h Old Jakarta Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad. [PAN: AAJFN 5653 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee by Shri Surji Chheda - CA राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR सुनवाई की ता…

M/S Surjeet Auto Agency, Bhopal vs. Pr CIT-2, Bhopal

ITA 189/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2015-16 M/S Surjeet Auto Agency, Pr. Cit-2, 4-5, Lajpat Nagar, Raisen Bhopal बनाम/ Road, Apsara Cinema, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aatfs 4110J Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Piush Parasar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 04.02.2020.The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…not disclosed by the assessee. In support of the above contention Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee has relied on following judgment: 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd . [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 3. Micro Inks Limited v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 681 (Guj) (HC) 4. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd – [2012] 20 taxmann.com 587(Delhi) Surjeet Auto Agency 8. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) referred to the finding of Ld. Pr. CIT and also decisions referred in the impugned order by the Ld. Pr. CIT and the same is mentioned below: 4. I…

Pooja Marketing, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 31, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2596/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Us, The Core Issues To Be Decided Are As Under:-

Section 115BSection 263Section 58(4)

…d on this point that in these circumstances, the revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act cannot be invoked by the ld PCIT. 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 (Bom) and in the case of Nirav Modi reported in 71 taxmann.com 272 (Bom). It is pertinent to note that the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Revenue against the judgement of Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirav Modi supra had been dismissed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court reported in 77 taxmann.com 15 (SC). 29 M/s.Pooja Marketing 7…

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Limited), Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1964/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Us, We Find That The Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld Pcit Was Justified In Invoking Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…o substitute his view in lieu of a possible view already taken by the ld AO on the impugned issue on the allowability of LTCL. 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 (Bom) and in the case of Nirav Modi reported in 390 ITR 292 (Bom). It is also pertinent to note that the Special Leave Petition (SLP) preferred by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the judgement of Nirav Modi was dismissed in 77 taxmann.com 15 (SC). 10. We also find that the Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act , which was…

Kaushikbhai Prahaladbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-7, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 667/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year : 2014-15 Kaushikbhai P. Patel Pr.Commissioner Of It-7 Ahmedabad. 43, Gidc Estate Vs. Naroda,Ahmedabad. Pan : Aavpp 9887 F

For Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 563

…en the assessee has not claimed any deduction of expenses during the year, the question of under assessment or loss of revenue does not arise. Similarly, he put reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108. On the other hand, the ld.CIT-DR relied upon the order of the Pr.Commissioner. 4 6. We have duly considered rival submissions and gone through the record carefully. Section 263 of the Income Tax Act has direct bearing on the controversy, therefore, it is pertinent to take note of this section. It reads as under: “263(1) The Commissioner may ca…

Shri Shaligram Barod, Indore vs. Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 625/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 54Section 54BSection 54FSection 54F(1)

…erroneous that the section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an Shaligram Borad incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous ". 24. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108 has held as under: “The power of suo motu revision under subsection (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 revision under this sub10 section, viz., (i) the order is erroneous; (ii)…

Satish Kumar Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 260/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…s: 341 ITR 537 (Del.) - CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.: 332 ITR 167 (Del) -CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Born.) - Vimgi Investment (P) Limited: 290 ITR 505 (Del) - Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H) - CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited: 203 ITR 108 (Born). 5.12.1 In connection wit the submission of the assessee, received on 03.12.2018, it may be reiterated that in order to provide clarity on the issue of "erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue", a new Explanation has been inserted to clarify that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to b…

Akhil Modi, Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Surendra Shah (CA)For Respondent: Shri Amrish Bedi (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…action of Ld. PCIT Alwar in passing the impugned order concluding that the said order is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue is bad in law. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabrial India Ltd., reported in 203 ITR 108, has held that, “CIT cannot revise order merely because he disagrees with the conclusion arrived at by the ITO”. Further, in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., reported in 227 CTR 133, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court drew a distinction between “Lack of inquiry” and “inadequate enquiry” and held that in the case of inadequate enquiry, provisions…

Sukhbir Singh Sahni, Mumbai vs. CIT-16, Mumbai

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

ITA 1871/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1871/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sukhbir Singh Sahni बिधम/ Cit-16 101, Mangal Bhandar, 13Th Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Road, Tps-Iii, Khar, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400052. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajps4701K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Kavita Hehendale (Ar) Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.02.2020 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015- 16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Hehendale (AR)For Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)(b)Section 24Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1871/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sukhbir Singh Sahni बिधम/ CIT-16 101, Mangal Bhandar, 13th Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Road, TPS-III, Khar, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400052. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAJPS4701K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Ms. Kavita Hehendale (AR) Revenue by: Shri H. N. Singh (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 16/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E…

M/S Silicon Estates vs. The Additional Commissioner of

In the result, the impugned orders of the

STA/4/2020HC Karnataka29 Mar 2021

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,J.M.KHAZI

Section 39(1)Section 66(1)

…-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI S.T.A. No.4/2020 C/W S.T.A. No.5/2020, S.T.A. No.6/2020, S.T.A. No.7/2020 IN S.T.A. No.4/2020 BETWEEN: M/S. SILICON ESTATES, NO.14, H.M. GENEVA HOUSE, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. H.J. SIWANI. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ZONE-II, 6TH FLOOR, VTK-1, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 009.…

M/S Ruchi J Oil Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT(A)Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 92C

…ON-RESIDENTS,if the reasons for non-applicability of said section were not specifically referred to in the assessment order, the same cannot be termed as to be “erroneous” order. Reliance is placed on following judgments :- a) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom). Held that “It is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an Income tax officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order should have been written more elaborately. Thi…