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 366,339 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.

Mrs. Shumana Sen, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3284/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR

Section 263

…are allowed.” 33. In yet another case, Jubilant Energy [P] Ltd ITA No. 3927/DEL/2016 order dated 04.07.2018, the co-ordinate bench under similar facts and circumstances, has held as under: “19. 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)…

Mrs. Shumana Sen, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3281/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR

Section 263

Mrs. Shumana Sen, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3283/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR

Section 263

Mrs. Shumana Sen, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3282/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR

Section 263

Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT - Range -6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2211/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Direct Media Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Distribution Ventures Pvt. Income Tax, Range-6 Ltd., Mumbai 18Th Floor, A-Wing Marathon Futurex N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aadcd1940Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…. This substitution of opinion by the ld CIT cannot be done by exercising revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act . Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdicitonal High Court in the case of CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bombay) dated 15.4.1993. 6.4. We also find that the assessee had filed a detailed reply dated 24.11.2016 before the ld AO which is part of the paper book filed before 16 M/s. Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd. us and reproduced hereinabove explaining the purpose of transfer of shares at Nil consideration , factual and legal position…

Bse Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1790/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 1790/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2015-16) Bse Ltd. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Phiroze Jeejeebhoy Towers, Tax-2, 25Th Floor, Room No. 344, बनाम/ Dalal Street, Fort, 3Rd Floor, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Vs. Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaccb6672L अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Rajesh Shah, Ars प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri M Dayasagar, Cit Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10.07.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.10.2019

For Appellant: S/shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri M Dayasagar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…AO is in accordance with law and cannot be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 15. In this respect, our attention was invited to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v/s. Gabriel India Limited (203 ITR 108) wherein upholding the order of the Tribunal, which had set aside the revision order of the CIT, held as under: - “The power of suo motu revision under sub- section (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 Commissio…

L.Paramasivam, Puducherry vs. ITO Ward 2, Puducherry

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1930/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1930/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Shri L. Paramasivam, No.69C, Suthukeni Post, Pillaiyar Ward 2, Puducherry. Koil Street, Sandai Pudukuppam, Puducherry – 605 502. Pan: Agfpp9044F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

…ion regarding the enquiry on the issues warranting action U/s.263. The ld.AR relied on various case laws viz., CIT v. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 SC, CIT vs. Savera Industries Ltd., Tax case Appeal No.839 of 2016 dt. 11.01.2017 and CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bom. HC). 4. Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the PCIT on examination of the impugned assessment records seen that  no turnover was reflected by the assessee either in the return of income or the statement accompanying it. :-4-: ITA No. 1930/Chny/2018  No evidence is available from the assessment records for the basis of adopting 52.48%…

Indglobal Network Support Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Mumbai

Accordingly grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5940/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5940/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & MsFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 56(2)(vijb)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5940/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Pr.CIT - 2, M/s Indglobal Network 3rd floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Support Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai 5th floor, AFL House, Lok बिधम/ Pin- Bharti Complex, Marol Vs. Maroshi Road, Andheri(east), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AABCI2069K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Nitesh Joshi & Ms. Sonakshi Jhunjhunwala, AR by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Awangshi Gimson, DR सुनवाईकीता…

Smt.Mithra Paul, Muvattupuzha vs. The ITO, WD-1, Thodupuzha

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

ITA 421/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 44ASection 69B

…e assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that such decision of the ITO cannot be held to be 'erroneous' simply because in the assessment order the ITO did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court (203 ITR 108). 5.1 The Ld AR submitted that section 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every or error committed by the Assessing Officer; it is only when an order is erroneous, that section will be attracted and incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. Reliance was pla…

Rajgul Ctrditnvest P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Prcit, Delhi-7, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2519/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2519/DEL/2019 A.Y. : 2009-10 RAJGUL CREDITNVEST P. LTD., PR. CIT, DELHI-7 474-75, AGGARWAL MILLENNIUM VS. NEW DELHI TOWER-II, NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI – 110 034 (PAN: AAACR5900M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Lalit Kumar, Adv. Department by : Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM This Appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 18/21-01-2019 passed by the Ld. Pr. Com…

Systematix Shares and Stocks India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1986/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Laxmi Vara Prasad Gude

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…was summoned. The PCIT on appraisal of the assessment order passed the order without any material available on record, therefore, the order in the said circumstances is not seems justifiable in view of the law settled in CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. reported in 203 ITR 108. It is also came into notice that the issue raised in the order passed u/s 263 of the Act has already been examined by AO while passing the order u/s 143(3) r.w. Section 147 of the Act. In this regard, a show cause notice dated 20.03.2019 is on the file which speaks about the relevant issue to which the 5 A.Y. 2009-10 AO had already been raised t…

The Indian Film Combine P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 16, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1985/Mum/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Film Combine Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-16 Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Room No.442, Aayakar 1St Floor, Maker Tower „F‟ Bhawan, M.K. Road, Cuffe-Parade, Mumbai- Mumbai. 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaaci3611E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Prakash Jothwani (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/08/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.01.2019 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “I. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -16 ("Hereinafter Referred To As The Pcit"), Ignoring The Relevant Facts On Record, Has Erred In Passing Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Holding That The Assessment Order Passed By The Ito 16(1)(5) ("Hereinafter Referred To As The Learned Ao") U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 26.12.2016 Is Erroneous So As To Be Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue & Directing The Ao To Decide All The Issues Afresh. The Appellant Submits That The Order U/S.263 Of The Act For Modifying The Order U/S.143(3) Of The Act Is Bad In Law, Illegal, Ultra-Virus, In Excess Of And/Or In Want Of Jurisdiction & Otherwise Void. 2. The Pcit Failed To Appreciate That The A.O. While Passing Order U/S 143(3) Has Considered The Facts Of The Case & Had Taken The Legally Correct View. The Pcit Erroneously Observed That There Is At Least Some

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jothwani (AR)For Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…d circumstances, there is no lack of enquiry. CIT in other words proposed to conduct a fresh assessment in the garb of 263 of the Act 19 A.Y. 2014-15 proceedings which is not justifiable in view of the law relied by the Assessee below : i) Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (ii) Dharam Pal 181 TTJ 40 1 (Asr). (iii) Vardhman International Ltd. 181 TTJ (40) 17 (Chd) & (iv) Vegisina Kamala 157 ITD 457 (Vishaka), In view of the above said facts and circumstances, we nowhere found any reason to sustain the order passed by the PCIT in question, therefore, we set aside order passed by the PCIT in question. 5. In the…

Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd., Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2047/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Laxmi Vara Prasad Gude , D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 41Section 41(1)Section 43B

…passed by the Pr Commissioner exercising the revisionary jurisdiction is bad in law. The Ld. A.R. relied on a series of decisions in defence of his arguments namely; 1. CIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (2018) 101 CCH 0194 2. CIT vs. Gabrial India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 3. CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi (2008) 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) 4. Girdhar Lal B. Rohra vs. CIT (2004) 86 TTJ 0177 5. Moil Ltd. vs. CIT 396 ITR 0244 (Bom) 6. Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 78 CCH 0108 Mum HC (2010) 229 CTR 0347 : (2010) 188 Taxman 0327 7. CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 0303 8. CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007…

Ms Surbhi Agrawal, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 649/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar Jain (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 80C

…ort of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC). The ld. A/R has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bombay) and submitted that the 4 Ms Surbhi Agarwal, Jaipur. Hon’ble High Court has held that the power under section 263 is to be exercised in case of no enquiry and not in case of inadequate or lack of enquiry. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC) and submitted that…

Banctec Tps India P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT Cir 15, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2366/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Banctec Tps India Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax-15, T-341, Tower 3, 4Th Floor Room No.574, 5Th Floor, International Infotech Park Aayakar Bhavan, Vashi Railway Station M.K.Road, Complex, Vashi Mumbai – 400 020 Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan/Gir No. Aaact8971E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 79

…nces of the case in the opinion of the ld. AO. This is not permissible in the revisionary jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act. 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). 12. In view of the aforesaid observations, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we hold that the ld. CIT erred in invoking revisionary jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act and accordingly, we are inclined to quash the same. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee is…

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (Ltu), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3727/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सुं/ Ita No. 3727/Mum/2016 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10)

For Appellant: S/shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeev K Gubgotra, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 32

…Revenue are cumulatively satisfied. This proposition has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and also by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom). Similarly, where two views are possible and AO has adopted the one of the two possible views, even then the order cannot be held to be erroneous so as to prejudicial to the interest to the Revenue. 18 | P a g e 13. Given in the facts of the case, we are of the view that revision exercise carried out by the CIT is bad in law and hence, quas…

Tetra Pak India Private Ltd., Pune vs. Dy.CIT, Cir.7, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 111/PUN/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.111/Pun/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Tetra Pak India Private Ltd., Mayfair Towers, Wakdewadi, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaact3467B बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-7, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Tetra Pak India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Appellant’) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253(1)(D) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Act’), Against The Order Dated 25 November 2010 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Circle 7 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Assessing Officer’) Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Act In Pursuance Of The Directions Dated 20 September 2010 Issued By The Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Honorable Drp’), On The Following Grounds: On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Honorable Drp & Consequentially The Learned Ao Have: I Grounds Of Objections In Respect Of Transfer Pricing Adjustment

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253(1)(d)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “lh” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, PUNE "ी डी. क"णाकरा राव, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी, "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.111/PUN/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Tetra Pak India Private Ltd., Mayfair Towers, Wakdewadi, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant PAN : AAACT3467B बनाम / V/s. DCIT, Circle-7, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue by : Shri S. B. Prasad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date of…

Winvest Holdings (I) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1519/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Chny/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. M/S. Winvest Holdings (I) Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of D-16, 2Nd Floor, Nelson Chambers, Income Tax, No.115 Nelson Manickam Road, Corporate Circle 3(2), Aminjikarai, Chennai. Chennai 600 029. [Pan Aaacw 7724Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, Advocate

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

…ar Industrial Co. Ltd vs. CIT, 243, ITR 83 and also the following decisions of various Hon’ble High Courts. (i) Davjee Dadabhoy and Co. vs. S.P. Jain, (1957) 31 ITR 872 (ii) CIT vs. T. Narayana Pai, (1975) 98 ITR 422. (iii) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd, (1993) 203 ITR 108. (iv) CIT vs. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh, (1995) 215 ITR 81. (v) CIT vs. G.R. Thangamaligai, (2003) 259 ITR 129. It is further contended that assessment order was passed after making due enquiry on the issues sought to be revised, in case if the ld. PCIT was of the opinion that the Assessing Officer had not made any enquiry on the issues then it wa…

Lupin Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT- Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3097/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma, DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 8

…the fact that assessment is made without application of mind. In this regard, the assessee placed reliance on the following judicial precedents: • CIT v. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P.) Ltd (2010) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) • Gabriel India Ltd (1993) (203 ITR 108) (Bom) • Nirav Modi (2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom) (SLP dismissed (2017) 77 taxmann.com 15 (SC) 16 | P a g e 17. In view of the above facts and the provisions of the Act and case laws discussed above, we are of the view that the Revision order passed by CIT under section 263 of the Act is without any basis and hence, quashed. 12 In the result, the ap…

M/S. Swastik Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT, 5(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 486/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jul 2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2014-15

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

…rt of Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. Vs. S.P. Jain and Another [31 ITR 872], the 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. [ITA 486/Ind/2018] [Swastik Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Indore] Mr. Abaraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Comp…