CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.

M/S K R Construction, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Central-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathak.R.Construction Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Basement, Hinal Residency Income Tax-Central-3 19Th Floor Datta Mandir Road Dahanukar Wadi Air India Building Kandivali(W) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai-400 021

…the scope of jurisdiction of power of the commissioner u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, 1961, because the CIT cannot replace his views on the issues in guise of inadequate enquiry as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High court in case of CIT vs Gabrieal India Limited (1993) 203 ITR 108. This view was further supported by the decision of Hon,ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi (2017) 390 ITR 292. In this case, on perusal of facts, we find that the Ld.PCIT has questioned the issue of suppression of turnover, which is also a matter of deliberation by the Ld. AO during the reassessment proceedings and hence, we are…

Sleek International, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 32(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…s. Sleek International Assessment Year :2014-15 1.2 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, 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 Aig General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaita No.3371 & 3372/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15) Tata Aig General Insurance Vs. Pr.Cit-8, Room No. 611, Company Limited Aayakar Bhawan, 15Th Floor, Tower-A, Penisula M.K.Road, Business Park, G.K.Marg, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aabct3518Q Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Sh. F.V.Irani Senior Advocate With Miss Pratiksha Advocate & Sh Ashish Thakar Ca Revenue By Sh. Manjunatha Swamy Cit-Dr & Sh Micheal Jarald Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 31/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 05/02/2020 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Pawan Singh(Jm): 1. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit)–28, Mumbai, Passed Under Section 263, Dated 30/03/2019 For Ay 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. In Both The Appeals, The Assessee Has Raised Identical Grounds Of Appeal; Facts For Both The Years Are Identical Except Variation Of Certain Figures Of Claim Under Different Claims. Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Clubbed, Heard & Are Decided By Consolidated Order. For Appreciation Of Facts, The Appeal For Ay

…port of his other submissions the ld AR for the assessee also relied on the following decisions;  Bank of Baroda Vs H.C. Shrivastava[2002] 256ITR 385 (Bom),  Union of India Vs Kamalaxmi Finance Corporation Ltd AIR 1992 SC 711,  CIT Vs Gabriel India [2003] 203 ITR 108 (Bom). 11. On the other hand the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of ld. PCIT. The ld. DR further submits that the assessment order is silent on the issue of IBNR & IBNER. No issue was raised by the Assessing Officer before passing the assessment order. There is no application of mind by Assessing Officer on the issue at the time of p…

Aha Holdings P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 1993/Mum/2019 (निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Aha Holdings Private Limited The Pr. Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, Trade View Building, Income Tax-6, बनाम/ Oasis Complex, Kamala Mills, Room No. 515, 5 Th Floor, Gate No.4, Pandurang Budhkar Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Vs. Marg, Lowe Parel, Karve Road, Mumbai-400 013 Mumbai -400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aafcs6404E अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Hioro Rai, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Harit, Cit Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, उपाध्यक्ष / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp:

…fter the AO has framed assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in similar situation has considered the issue, wherein the AO has examined the details and allowed the claim of the assessee in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom), the another case law of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gera Development P. Ltd. 387 ITR 691 (Bom.), wherein the similar issue was considered and held as under: - “7. We have considered the rival submissions. With regard to issue (a) i.e. taxability of the transfer of development right, we find that the impugned order of…

Owens -Corning (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Owens-Corning (India) Vs. The Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known Income Tax-7 As Owens Corning ((India) Mumbai Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Alpha Building, 7Th Floor Maharshi Karve Road Hiranandani Gardens Mumbai – 400 020 Powai, Mumbai – 400706 Pan/Gir No. Aaaco1739M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…ct by the ld CIT merely because, he is of a different view with regard to the manner of set off of brought forward losses. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bom). 12 M/s. Owens Corning (India) Pvt. Ltd 5.4. In view of the aforesaid detailed observations in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedents, we have no hesitation in holding that there was no error in the order of the ld. AO in set off of brought forward business loss and depr…

Dena Bank, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddena Bank Vs. Pcit-2 Room No.344, 3Rd Floor Accounts Department Dena Bank Building Aaykar Bhawan 2Nd Floor M.K.Road 17/B, Horniman Circle Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aaacd4249B Appellant) .. Respondent)

…PCIT-6 (supra). We find that the Tribunal has considered an identical issue, in light of provisions of section 263 and also by following various judicial precedents, including the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108 held as under:- 11. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the AO. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, for example, when an ITO adopted one of the courses permissible in law and…

Shell India Markets P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (A.M.) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Shell India Markets Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax- Trent House, First Floor, Large Tax Units (Ltu) G-Block, Plot No.C-60, Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051 Pan : Aaics1404P Appellant Respondednt

…y AO. 13. In support of his submission, the Ld.AR of the assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd reported vide 243 ITR 83(SC); decision of Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd reported vide 203 ITR 108 (Bom), decision of Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs M/s I.Gate Global Solutions (P) Ltd (supra). 14. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of Ld. CIT (LTU). The Ld. DR further submits that the ratio of decision in Deloitte Consulting India Pvt. Ltd (supra) is fully applicable in the facts of the present case. The AO w…

Gurukrupa Developers D N Nagar Project, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Ramlal Negi (JM) I.T.A. No. 3353/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15) M/s. Gurukrupa Developers PCIT-32 Vs. DN Nagar Project 2nd Floor, C-11 A-205, Western Edge-II Pratyakshakar Behind Metromall Dattapada Bhavan Borivali-East Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400 066. Complex, Mumbai 400 051. PAN : AAFFG7859Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sashi Tulsiyan Department by Shri Ajay Kumar Date of Hearing 18.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement 14.01.2020 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This is an appeal by the assessee directed ag…

Syscom Corporation Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-3, Mumbai

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1608/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

…entral), Ludhiana vs. Max India Ltd. [2008] 166 Taxman 188 (SC)/[2007] 295ITR 282 (SC)/[2007] 213 CTR 266 (SC) 6 I.T.A. No. 1608/Mum/2018 M/s Syscom Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 71 Taxman 585 (Bombay)/[1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay)/[1993] 114 CTR 81 (Bombay High Court) Harihar Housing Agency vs. Commissioner of Income-tax-l, Nagpur [2017] 83 taxmann.com 48 (Nagpur- Trib.) (ITAT Nagpur) 9) Thus, all material facts and documents were available with the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and relevant inquiries made by the AO were duly replied by the asse…

Asian Homes P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 9, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). 4.5 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…