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 366,459 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.

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

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

ITA 45/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…

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

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

ITA 44/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…

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

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

ITA 43/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…

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

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

ITA 42/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…

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

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

ITA 41/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…

Asst Circle - 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Aristo Pharmaceuticals P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2775/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.2775 & 2776/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Harit, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Rastogi, A.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…ITA Nos.2775 & 2776/Mum/2019 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 1 DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1) Vs. M/s Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member ITA Nos.2775 & 2776/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1) M/s Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 561, 5th Floor, 3rd Floor, Merchantile Chamber, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, 12 J N Heredia Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 PAN – AAACA4495N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rajeev Harit, D.R. Respondent…

M/S Mbl Infrastructures Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 427/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.427/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Mbl Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata . 1St Floor, Divine Bliss, 2/3, Judges Court Road, Kolkata – 700027. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccm0564C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ram Bilash Meena, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/10/2020

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 35DSection 80Section 80I

…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 (page 113): " . . . 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 by the Incom…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3699/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman: A.Y : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

…y 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.) 20 Bank of India B) Anil Shah vs ACIT, (2007) 162 taxman 39 (Mum.) 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 directed…

M/S. Guru Kripa Career Institute Pvt. Ltd., Sikar vs. Pr.CIT-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 283/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Sept 2020AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 68

…by A.O. is erroneous which is not valid in the eyes of law. For this purpose, reliance was placed on the various judicial pronouncements i.e. (CIT Vs. Trustees Anupam Charitable Trust (1987) 167 ITR (129) (Rajasthan), CIT Vs. Godawari Sugar Mills Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Shakti Charities (2000) 160 CTR 107 (Mad.). The facts and submissions are verifiable from the assessment record. The Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Green World Corporation (2009) 314 ITR 81 (Supreme Court) held that ‘The jurisdiction under section 263 can be exercised only when both the following conditions are satisfied (i)…

Vodafone India Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3327/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shriramlal Negi, Jm Vodafone India Ltd., Principal Commissioner Of Income Peninsula Corporate Park, Tax-8, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Room No. 611, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Road, Mumbai, Maharastra, Pin- 400020. Pan: Aaach 5332 B Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 35ASection 37

…ion 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 (2012) 17 Taxman. Com 120 (Karnataka 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 (Delhi H.C. – affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CC 9308/2013) 8. CIT vs Vodafone Essar South Ltd. (CC 9308/2012 – SC) 8. As per th…

Goldmohur Design and Apparel Park Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm. of Income Tax - 7, Mumbai

ITA 3971/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodgoldmohar Design & Pr. Cit-7 R. No. 628, 6Th Floor, Apparel Park Ltd. 145, Goldmohar Mill, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Dada Saheb Phalke Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Dadar (E), Mumbai- 400 014 Pan – Aadcg1613M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. T. Kipgen &
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). Also, support was drawn by him from the judgments of the Hon‘ble High Court of Bombay in the case of viz. (i) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom); (ii) Goldmohar Desine and Apparel Park Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT-7 20 ITA No.3971/Mum/2017 A.Y 2012-13 Grasim Industry Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom); (iii) CIT Vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 458 (Bom); (iv) CIT Vs. Gera Development (P) Ltd. (2016) 387 ITR 691 (Bom); and (v) CIT Vs. Kiran Hirji Shah (2015) 56 Taxman.com 360 (Bo…

Acc Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3576/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar(Virtual Hearing In Virtual Court No. Ii)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 234DSection 263

…he order is prejudice to the interest of revenue. In support of his various submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex [Civil Appeal No. 815 of 2007 (SC)].  CIT vs. Gabrel India Ltd. [203 ITR 108 (Bom)],  ITA No. 532/Mum/2014 Everest Industries Ltd. vs. CIT dated 21.08.2019  Panyam Cements & Minerals Industry Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (ITA No. 706/Hyd/2013 dated 25.03.2015.  Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. vs. PCIT (ITA No. 1096/Kol/2017) dated 11.12.2019.  CIT vs. K. Sera. Sera Productions Ltd. [374 ITR 503 (Bom)]  Amazia Developers Pvt. Ltd.…

Tata Sons Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit 2, 24, Bombay House, Room No.552, Homi Mody Street, Vs. 5Th Floor, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaact4060A M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.R. Ms. Arati Vissanji, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 57

…e revenue unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law." In this regard, reliance is further placed on the following decisions: Jagadhri Electric Supply (166 ITR 143) (P&H HC); Venkata-Knshna Rice Co. (163 ITR 129) (Mad HC); Gabrial India Limited (203 ITR 108) (Bom HC); and Nirma Chemicals Work P Limited (309 ITR 67) (Guj HC) 3. It is submitted before your Honour that during the course of assessment proceedings for the captioned year, vide questionnaire dated 14 December 201 A, the AO had specifically sought justification / submissions as to how receipt of royalty is business receipt and why the same…

Laxmi Ventures (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-2014

ITA 2199/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Laxmi Ventures (India) Pvt. The Principal Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax 7, Mumbai, Aaykar 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mahalaxmi , Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400034 Pan: Aaacl1082G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT DR)
Section 133Section 143Section 14ASection 263Section 40Section 68

…u/s 133 (6) of the Act to the Bhilai unit for obtaining financials of the Bhilai Unit and after due application of mind did not make any addition in respect of the said unit. The Ld. counsel relied on the following cases: 1. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom). 2. CIT Vs. Gnat Ram Bishnoi (2008) 296 ITR 292 (Raj) 3. Girdhari Lal B. Rohra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2004) 86 TTJ 0177. 4. Unilever PLC vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (2007) 18 SOT 0136. 5. Mrs. Khatiza S. OOmerbhoy vs. Income Tax Officer (2006) 101 TTJ 1095 (mum) 6. MOIL Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (High Court of…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The DCIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…ercised to substitute its own finding in place of the AO and therefore, the ld. PCIT cannot re-examine the issues already inquired into by the AO. Reliance is also placed on the Bombay High Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108] wherein it is held that the power u/s 263 of the Act is to be exercised in the case of "no inquiry" and not in the case of "inadequate inquiry" or "lack of inquiry" whereas the case of the assessee is not even a case of lack of inquiry. 14. It is submitted that under the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, the Ld. PCIT has initiated revision proc…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The ACIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…ercised to substitute its own finding in place of the AO and therefore, the ld. PCIT cannot re-examine the issues already inquired into by the AO. Reliance is also placed on the Bombay High Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108] wherein it is held that the power u/s 263 of the Act is to be exercised in the case of "no inquiry" and not in the case of "inadequate inquiry" or "lack of inquiry" whereas the case of the assessee is not even a case of lack of inquiry. 14. It is submitted that under the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, the Ld. PCIT has initiated revision proc…

M/S. Bhandari Hospital and Research Centre, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 355/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 35A

…674, CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (Delhi H.C.). At r. 323 ITR 632, CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) P. Ltd. (Bombay H.C.), of s. 323 ITR 206, CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. t. 243 ITR 83, Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, (Supreme Court) u. 203 ITR 108 CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (Bombay H.C.) Elaborating on the aforesaid decisions : 4.1 On the question regarding examination of validity of issuance of notice, assumption of jurisdiction and passing of impugned order u/s 263 of the Act, the appellant is placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries C…

Shri Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 350/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…ercised to substitute its own finding in place of the AO and therefore, the ld. PCIT cannot re-examine the issues already inquired into by the AO. Reliance is also placed on the Bombay High Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108] wherein it is held that the power u/s 263 of the Act is to be exercised in the case of "no inquiry" and not in the case of "inadequate inquiry" or "lack of inquiry" whereas the case of the assessee is not even a case of lack of inquiry. 14. It is submitted that under the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, the Ld. PCIT has initiated revision proc…

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT 9, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 3159/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3159/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Afcons Infrastructure Limited Pr. Cit-9 16, Afcons House Room No.214, Aaykar Bhavan बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, M.K. Road Shah Industrial Estate Vs. Veera Desai Road, Andheri West Mumbai. Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-9067-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Nitesh Joshi-Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anadi Varma-Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 05/09/2019 & 19/12/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 17/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Nitesh Joshi-Ld. ArsFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma-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…

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

ITA 3424/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3424/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Raja Vora & Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 1Section 11Section 115BSection 115JSection 119Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 244ASection 263

…order which goes against the interests of revenue. Therefore, both the 7 I.T.A. No. 3424/Mum/2019 Tata Motors Ltd conditions must pre-exist to exercise revision u/S: 263 of the Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional. Bombay High Court in Gabriel India ltd. [1993] (203 ITR 108) (copy enclosed its Exhibit 0 of the Case Laws Compilation) held that in cases where the assessing officer passes an order after considering the documents and information submitted to him but without making elaborate discussion in the order, that does not make such an order passed by the AO as erroneous. In the above case, the order prejudicial t…