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

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

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

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

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

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

CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108)

Sri Lalit Murarka, Cuttack vs. ITO, Cuttack

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 409/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.188 & 409/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sri Lalit Murarka, Vs. Cit, Cuttack Prop- M/S Subham, Kanika Chhak, Cuttack Pan No. : Apmpm 9441 C (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, Advs िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee Has Filed These Two Appeals I.E.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 263(1)

…263, the CIT cannot initiate proceeding with a view to start second investigation for starting fishing and roving enquiries in view of the following judgements which is binding on him. a) CIT Vs. Sakhi Charities, 60 ITR 107 (Mad) b) CIT Vs. Garbiel India Ltd, 203 ITR 108 5. That other grounds if any will be urged at the time of hearing of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from sale of Zuari make furniture under the name & style “M/s SUBHAM” as well as salary income and filed his return of income electronically on 30.03.2011 disclosing total income at Rs.1,78,320/-. The asses…

Lalit Murarka, Cuttack vs. CIT, Cuttack

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 188/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.188 & 409/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sri Lalit Murarka, Vs. Cit, Cuttack Prop- M/S Subham, Kanika Chhak, Cuttack Pan No. : Apmpm 9441 C (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, Advs िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee Has Filed These Two Appeals I.E.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 263(1)

…263, the CIT cannot initiate proceeding with a view to start second investigation for starting fishing and roving enquiries in view of the following judgements which is binding on him. a) CIT Vs. Sakhi Charities, 60 ITR 107 (Mad) b) CIT Vs. Garbiel India Ltd, 203 ITR 108 5. That other grounds if any will be urged at the time of hearing of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from sale of Zuari make furniture under the name & style “M/s SUBHAM” as well as salary income and filed his return of income electronically on 30.03.2011 disclosing total income at Rs.1,78,320/-. The asses…

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ltu 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3425/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 263Section 71

…f the Malbar Industrial Company Ltd., reported in 243 ITR 83 b) Decision of Hon‟ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Smt. Lila Choudhury reported in 167 Taxmann 1 c) Decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd., reported in 203 ITR 108. d) Decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd., reported in 323 ITR 206. e) Decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vodafone Essar South Ltd., reported in 28 Taxmann.com 273. 3.7. It was specifically pointed out that the order passed by the ld. AO was not passed on incorrect assum…

Vrutti Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-29, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1085/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Batham-Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…sim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, CIT V/s Vikas Polymers (194 Taxman 57 16/08/2010) 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…

Jai Hind Co-Op Hsg. Soc Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-25, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1762/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1763/Mum/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1762/Mum/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Jai Hind Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Acit-25(2) 2Nd Floor, Room No.241 Plot No.51, N.S.Road No.11 बनाम Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle(W) Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block / Vs. Mumbai-400 049 Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400 051 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaaj-2782-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rajesh R. Shah-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Pratap Singh-Ld.Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 10/02/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 12/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh R. Shah-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Pratap Singh-Ld.CIT DR

Section 263Section 80(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(d)

…sim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, CIT V/s Vikas Polymers (194 Taxman 57 16/08/2010) 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…

Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3285/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 17(2)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs DCIT, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. PAN: AIGPS3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, CA Revenue by : Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR. Date of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed aga…

Eicher Goodearth Investment Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT- IV, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5815/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2007-08] Eicher Motors Ltd. [Erstwhile Vs. The C.I.T Eicher Goodearth Investment Ltd] Delhi Iv Eicher House, 12, Commercial Complex New Delhi Pan: Aaace 0052 D [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263

…when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous ". 16. 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…

Essar Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…under section 263 of the Act. Reliance is placed on the following decisions to support the submission that a "possible view" cannot be revised under section 263 of the Act: i. Malabar Industrial Co Ltd vs. CIT (243 ITR 83) (SC) ii. CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd (203 ITR 108) (Bom) In view of the above, it was submitted that the Assessing Officer has taken a possible view in allowing the cost of Rs.5,857/- crores and therefore, the assessment order cannot be termed as erroneous. 71 M/s. Vajresh Consultants Ltd. (Earlier known as Essar Capital Ltd.) 7.9. On the second reason given by PCIT for invoking the provisions…

Solarfield Energy Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, -2, Mumbai

ITA 292/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodsolarfield Energy Private Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 Limited, Hinduja House, Room No. 344, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 171, Dr. Annie Besent Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan – Aaocs4380A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, CIT D.R

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

…not be conclusive for drawing an inference that there had been no application of mind in respect of the said issue by the A.O. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Gabrial India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and that of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del). Solarfield Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 12 ITA No. 292/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 11. We shall now advert to the fact as to whether or not the view taken by the A.O as regards the allowability of the forfaiting c…

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. .CIT-(A) 13, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3910/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija

Section 263

…t cannot be termed erroneous and prejudicial under Section 263 for the reason that the learned Commissioner is of the opinion that inquiries carried out were inadequate. In this regard, following case laws have been referred :- i) CIT v. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom); ii) CIT v. Nirav Modi (2016) 390 ITR 292 (Bom); iii) CIT v. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del); iv) CIT v. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom); v) DIT v. Jyoti Foundation (2013) 357 ITR 388 (Del); and, vi) Globus Infocom Ltd. v. CIT (2014) 369 ITR 14 (Del) Furthermore, following case laws have been referred :- i) Malabar Industri…

Versova Shanti Co-Operative Housing Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 25, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1056/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Tikekar-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Lalit Dehiya -Ld.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…sim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, CIT V/s Vikas Polymers (194 Taxman 57 16/08/2010) 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 5 Versova Shanti Co-op. Housing Soc. Ltd. Assessment Year : 2015-16 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 or…

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3473/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Bank Of India Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of 8Th Floor, Taxation Income Tax-2(1)(1) Department, Mumbai Star House, C-5, G Block Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb0472C (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ly because the Commissioner has a different opinion in the matter, it cannot render the order of Assessing Officer erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In this regard, he relied on the following case laws :- A) CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108(Bom.) B) Anil Shah vs ACIT, (2007) 162 taxman 39 (Mum.) 8 M/s. Bank of India C) Reliance Money Inf Ltd. vs PCIT, [2017] 88 taxmann.com 871 (Mumbai Trib.) 19. With regard to the third issue of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act in computing book profits, he submitted that the ld. PCIT in his order under Section 263 of the Act had not dir…

M/S. Provimi Animal Nutrition India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2215/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…ITR 872], the M/s. Provimi Animal Nutrition India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 5 of 16 High Court of Karnataka in Commissioner of Income- tax, Mysore Vs. T. Narayana Pai [98 ITR 422], the High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [203 ITR 108] and the High Court of Gujarat in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh [215 ITR 81] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. ……. 9. The phrase prejudicial to the interests of the revenue has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a co…

Ramila Diam Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-5, Mumbai

Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2340/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2340/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2341/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2342/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) Ramila Diam Pvt. Ltd. The Pr. Commissioner Of B-401, 4 Th Floor, Anand Building, Income Tax-5, Tirupati Apartments, Bhulabhai बिाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Desai Road, Mumbai-400 026 Karve Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaecr8201P अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M Subramanian, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri K. Madhusudan, Dr सुििाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri M Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…e revisional jurisdiction. The learned AR in support of his contention placed reliance on the following decisions: - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay) 2.2 The learned AR on merits of the addition submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition by estimating gross profit on alleged bogus entries. Although estimation of GP by Assessing Officer is on the higher side i.e. as against the GP of 4% declared by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has estimated GP at the rate of 12.5%.…

Jytsna Sunderlal Shroff, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 25, Mumbai

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

ITA 216/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A. Mohan, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…within the time period prescribed u/s 54 of the Act. Stating that the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, the Ld. counsel relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom), CIT v. Nirav Modi [2017] 390 ITR 292 (Bom) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 83 (SC). 4.1 The Ld. counsel further submits that as per section 54 of the Act, the time limit for purchasing a new residential unit is one year or two years after the date of transfer and in case of co…

Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Ltd, Kolkata vs. Princiapal C.I.T., Kolkata - I, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1100/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. Nos. 1099 & 1100/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engineers Ltd..............................………………..Appellant 43/46, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata – 700 024. [Pan: Aacg 9371 K] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Incomes Tax, Kolkata – 1, Kolkata ……………………………Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Appearances By: Shri Sanjoy Bhattacharya, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 17, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order November 20, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy: Am Both These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata - 1, Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Act 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 21.03.2018. As The Issues Arising In Both The Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…rom time to time. The question as to whether the relevant assessment order must expressly discuss the issues in question or not so as to attract sec, 263 revision proceedings stands settled long back in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gabrial India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) that mere non-discussion on an issue in the assessment order does not render it an erroneous causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue. Hon'ble apex court’s landmark decisions in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Max India (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) also h…

Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Ltd, Kolkata vs. Princiapal C.I.T., Kolkata - I, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1099/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. Nos. 1099 & 1100/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engineers Ltd..............................………………..Appellant 43/46, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata – 700 024. [Pan: Aacg 9371 K] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Incomes Tax, Kolkata – 1, Kolkata ……………………………Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Appearances By: Shri Sanjoy Bhattacharya, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 17, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order November 20, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy: Am Both These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata - 1, Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Act 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 21.03.2018. As The Issues Arising In Both The Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…rom time to time. The question as to whether the relevant assessment order must expressly discuss the issues in question or not so as to attract sec, 263 revision proceedings stands settled long back in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gabrial India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) that mere non-discussion on an issue in the assessment order does not render it an erroneous causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue. Hon'ble apex court’s landmark decisions in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Max India (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) also h…

M/S. Om Prakash Badaya (HUF), Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT, Alwar

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

ITA 217/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agrawal (AR)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (ACIT-DR)

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.217/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 cuke Shri Om Prakash Badaya, Pr. CIT Vs. HUF, Alwar 42, Agrasen Nagar, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABHO0013L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by:Shri Manish Agrawal (AR) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri A.S. Nehra (ACIT-DR) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 19/11/2020 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement…

Ravish Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 47/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…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 be…

Rachit Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 46/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…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 be…

CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.

Sri Lalit Murarka, Cuttack vs. ITO, Cuttack

Lalit Murarka, Cuttack vs. CIT, Cuttack

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ltu 2, Mumbai

Vrutti Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-29, Mumbai

Jai Hind Co-Op Hsg. Soc Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-25, Mumbai

Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Eicher Goodearth Investment Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT- IV, New Delhi

Essar Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

Solarfield Energy Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, -2, Mumbai

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. .CIT-(A) 13, Mumbai

Versova Shanti Co-Operative Housing Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 25, Mumbai

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai

M/S. Provimi Animal Nutrition India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru

Ramila Diam Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-5, Mumbai

Jytsna Sunderlal Shroff, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 25, Mumbai

Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Ltd, Kolkata vs. Princiapal C.I.T., Kolkata - I, Kolkata

Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Ltd, Kolkata vs. Princiapal C.I.T., Kolkata - I, Kolkata

M/S. Om Prakash Badaya (HUF), Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT, Alwar

Ravish Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

Rachit Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata