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 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.

Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Incomne Tax-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 3107/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri C.N. Prasad: A.Y : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri B. Pruseth
Section 10ASection 10A(8)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 70Section 71Section 72

…. Thus, admittedly Assessing Officer has arrived at a particular conclusion which is now sought to be revised by the Commissioner by exercising his revisionary power u/s 263 of the Act. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 held that there must be material before the Commissioner to satisfy himself that two requisites provided u/s 263 of the Act are present, otherwise power cannot be exercised at the whims and caprice of the Commissioner. It is not permissible u/s 263(1) of the Act to substitute the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Assessing Officer unle…

Johnson and Johnson Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4947/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh() & Shri G. Manjunatha () Johnson & Johnson Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ltu) 501, Arena Space, Off Jvlr Mumbai Behind Majas Bus Depot, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-60 Pan : Aaacj0866E Appellant Respondednt

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

…der being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue are cumulatively satisfied. In support of his submission, the Ld.AR relied upon the decision of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Bombay High Court in CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108 (Bom). The Ld.AR further submitted that revisionary proceedings are not valid where the AO has fully examined all the records at the time of passing of assessment order and passed the assessment order, after due application of mind. It was submitted that the AO was aware of the fact that Assessee Company has been claiming deduction u/s 80IC s…

Manita, Muzaffarnagar vs. Prcit, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 3432/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Venkatesh ChaurasiaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Shivam, CIT-D.R
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…ken by the A.O. which is not permissible under the Law. She has relied upon CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Del.). Learned Counsel for the Assessee also relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd., [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom.). She has also submitted that Ld. Pr. CIT has invoked Explanation-2 to Section 263 of the I.T. Act which cannot be invoked in the case of inadequate enquiry and also this Explanation is applicable w.e.f. A.Y. 2015-2016 and hence, not applicable to assessment year under appeal. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also submitted that Ld. Pr. CIT…

Sajid Nadiadwala, Mumbai vs. CIT 11, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1411/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…he decision relied upon by the assessee is relevant in the present case as the Assessing Officer has very much applied his mind on the issue and arrived at conclusion. Further, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. 9 Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 held that there must be material before the Commissioner to satisfy himself that two requisites provided u/s. 263 are present, otherwise power cannot be exercised at the whims and caprice of the Commissioner. It is not permitted u/s 263 of the Act to substitute the judgment of the Commissioner for that of Assessing Officer unless the conditions s…

Goldcity Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 14, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2179/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhgoldcity Properties Pvt. Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of [Now Merged With Supergold Vs. Income-Tax -14, R. No. 415, 4Th Floor, Properties Pvt. Ltd.], Shop No.1, Building No.2, Aayakar Bhavan, Sharmik Chs Ltd., Tilak M.K. Road, Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400089. Pan: Aaccg1757H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel (AR)For Respondent: Shri B. Jaya Kumar (CIT-DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 152(2)Section 254(1)Section 263

…12.2018, (iii) Amira Pure Foods Pvt Ltd Vs PCIT (ITA No. 3205/Del/2017) dated 29.11.2017, (iv) Care view Investment & Trading Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (ITA 53/M/2012 dated 31.10.2013, 11 ITA No. 2179 Mum 2019- Goldcity Properties Pvt. Ltd. (v) CIT Vs Gabriel India ( 203 ITR 108 Bom), (vi) CIT Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd ( 323 ITR 206 Bom), (vii) CIT Vs Max India (295 ITR 282 SC), (viii) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd ( 332 ITR 167 Delhi), (ix) CIT Vs Vikas Polymers (341 ITR 537 Delhi), (x) CIT Vs Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502 Guj), (xi) Malabar Industrial Company Vs CIT (243 ITR 83 SC), (xii) Mehta Trading Vs CIT ( ITA No.…

Futuristic Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Prcit (Central), Gurugram

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1043/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2009-10] M/S Futuristic Sales [P] Ltd Vs. The Pr. C.I.T Flat No. 97, Sfs, First Floor Central Ashok Vihar, Phase – Iv Gurgaon New Delhi Pan No: Aaacf 6597 N [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 148Section 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 ". 20. 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)…

Amit Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 28, Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 4050/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Shah and Ms. Niyanta Mehta-Ld. ArsFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma-Ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…Courts had considered the ambit of the jurisdiction under Section 263 before the issue was comprehensively determined by the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra). A judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 / 71 Taxman 585 , held that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. Moreover, the Division Bench held that if the Assessing Officer acting in accordance with the law has made a certain assessment, it cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because the order should have been written more el…

Ankush Garg, Rohtak vs. CIT, Rohtak

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

ITA 2287/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(3)Section 263

…clusion and income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, resort to Section 263 of the Act is available and should be resorted to. 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), while referring 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 ITA No. 2287 & 2288/Del/2015 6 application of legal principles" There must be material on record to show that tax which was lawfully exi…

M/S. Flexituff International Ltd., Dhar vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 282/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 M/S. Flexituff International Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd, Vs. Income Tax-1, C-41-50, Sez, Sector-3, Indore Pithampur, Dist. Dhar (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Aaacn5986H Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit Assessee By Shri Manjit Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Advocates Date Of Hearing 26.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 14.05.2019 O R D E R

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…Section 263 of Act do not visualise the substitution of the judgment of the Pr.CIT/CIT for that of the Assessing Officer unless his order is not in accordance with the law. As held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT V/s Gabriel India Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay) that there must be some prima facie material on record to show that the tax which was lawfully eligible has not been imposed or that by the application of the relevant statute on an incorrect or incomplete interpretation, a lesser tax than what has just has been imposed. 13 Flexituff International Ltd 11. Now let us examine as to whe…

Amazia Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2499/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta with Anuj Kushandwala –CA’s (AR)For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 22Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Amazia Developers Pvt. DCIT- Circle 1(1)(1) Room No. 533, 5th Ltd. 108, G- Wing, Akruti Commercial Complex, Next Vs. Floor, Aayakar to Akruti Centre Point, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Central Road, Andheri Churchgate, (East) Mumbai-400067. Mumbai-400020. PAN: AACHCA6934H Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Vijay Mehta with Anuj Kushandwala –CA’s (AR) Respondent by : Shri R.P. Meena CIT-DR & M.K. Singh (Sr DR) Date of Hearing : 30.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 ORDER…

M/S Eureka Medicare Private Limited, Yavatmal vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Nagpur

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 132/NAG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.132/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013–14 M/S. Eureka Medicare Private Limited, C/O. Sanjeevan Hospital Yavatmal Ratanlal Plot, Mahadeo Mandir Road, Near Postal Ground, Yavatmal-445001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aabce6829M बनाम / V/S. Pr. Cit-2, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. Assessee By : Shri K. P. Dewani, Adv. Revenue By : Shri U. U. Kasar, Jt. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Pr. Cit- 2, Nagpur Dated 29.03.2018 Passed U/S 263 Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. The Order Passed U/S 263 Of I.T. Act 1961 Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law. 2. The Order Passed U/S 263 Holding That Assessment Framed By A.O. Is Without Making Inquiries & Is Therefore Erroneous Is Unjustified Unwarranted & Bad In Law. 3. The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Being After Complete Examination & Verification Cannot Be Termed As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 4. The Assessee Having Submitted Complete Details Before Hon’Ble Cit, He Ought Not To Have Set Aside The Assessment Directing The A.O. To Pass A Fresh Assessment Order & Verify The Admissibility Of Claim Of Deduction U/S 80Ib(11C) Of I.T. Act 1961. 5. Any Other Ground That Shall Be Prayed At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri K. P. Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri U. U. Kasar, Jt. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…. We hold that there was no material on record to warrant assumption of jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income Tax. In this regard, we place reliance upon the exposition of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabrial India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom) for the following: 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 Commissioner to exercise power of revision under this sub-section, viz., (i ) the order is erroneous;…

Valecha Badwani Sendhwa Tollways Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 11, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 2848/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhvalecha Badwani Sendhwa Pcit-11 Tollways Ltd. 4Th Floor, R.No. 417, Aayakar Bhavan, Valecha Chambers, Andheri M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. New Link Road, Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400053. Pan: Aadcv6105B Appellant Respondent Valecha Lm Tools Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-11 4Th Floor, Valecha Chambers, R.No. 417, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri New Link Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400053. Pan: Aadcv2787M Appellant Respondent : Shri Sumant Chadha With Appellant By Mr. Jitendra Trivedi (Ar) Respondent By : Shri S.K. Poddar (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2019

For Respondent: Shri Sumant Chadha with
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 32

…taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law. 13. In the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd reported in (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held as under: "An order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an ITO acting in accordance with law makes 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.…

Ostwal Diamonds P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1082/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhostwal Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. Pcit(1), Office No. 201/1A Wing, Ashar I.T.Park, 6Th Floor, Ostwal Park, Jesal Park, B Wing, Road No. 16-Z, Bhayander (E)-401105. Wagle Industrial Estate, Vs. Pan: Aaaco4853A Thane (W)-400604. Appellant Respondent : Shri Rajesh Shah (Ar) Appellant By Respondent By : Shri Awungshi Gimsen (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Shah (AR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 263

…pts one of the view possible in law, then the order cannot be treated as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue, unless the view taken by assessing officer is unsustainable and in law. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Gabriel India Ltd (203 ITR 108 Bom) has held that Commissioner cannot initiate proceeding with a view to starting fishing and roving enquiries in matters or orders which are 10 ITA No. 1028 Mum 2019- Ostwal Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. already concluded. There must be material on record to show that tax which was lawfully exigible has not been imposed if claim was allowed by the In…

Sheth Commercial Co., Kolkata vs. CIT-14 Kolkata, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1406/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata16 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Sheth Commercial Co. V/S. Pr. Cit-14, C/O D.J. Shah & Co. 3, Government Place, Kalyan Bhavan, 2 Elgin Kolkata-700001 Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan No.Aakfs 409 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Shrhari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-04-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-14, Kolkata’S Order Dated 20.03.2017 Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame Afresh Assessment After Setting Aside The Regular One Framed Dated 23.03.2015 In Exercising Revision Jurisdiction Vested U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). We Have Heard Shri Miraj D Shah Learned Authorized Representative For Assessee & Shri P.K.Srihari, Cit/Dr Appearing At Revenue’S Behest. Case File Perused. 2. It Transpires During The Course Of Hearing That The Assessee’S Pleading Challenge Correctness Of The Pcit’S Order Revising The Regular Assessment In Issue Framed By The Assessing Officer On 06.07.2016 With Directions To Frame

Section 1Section 263Section 35(1)(c)

…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 Income-t…

Shree Pushkar Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 is allowed

ITA 1193/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Shree Pushkar Chemicals & The Cit-7, Fertilizers Ltd., Room No. 611, 202, A Wing, Bldg., No. 3, Aaykar Bhavan, Rahul Mittal Industrial Estate, Vs. M.K. Road, Sir M.V. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri (East), Mumbai – 4000059 Pan: Aaacs9372E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja PawarFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin &
Section 11Section 14Section 143Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…claimed u/s 80IB. We further notice that this explanation of the assessee was submitted before the Ld. CIT by the assessee on 19.02.2013 in reply to the notice issued u/s 263 of the Act. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108, has held that the powers u/s 263 can be exercised only if the circumstance specified therein exists i.e. the order must be erroneous and by virtue of the erroneous order prejudice has been caused to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with the law. In the case of Malabar I…

Rajesh Kumar, Hisar vs. CIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3337/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Rajesh Kumar, Vs. Cit, 1931, Gate No. 2, Behind Hisar M.G. Road, Hisar Pan :Aohpk1201L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Manoj Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Sulekha Verma, Cit(Dr)

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

…3 cannot be invoked in cases where the Commissioner is looking for more Inquiry from his perspective and it can be invoked in case of no Inquiry only. He places reliance on following judgments: 1. CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167; 2. Gabrial India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) 13 3. DIT Vs. Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388 (Del.) 4. Income Tax Officer Vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd., 74 ITR 153 (Delh) 5. CIT Vs. Hero Auto Ltd., 74 DTR 164 (Del.) 6. CIT Vs. Hindustan Marketing and Advertising Co. Ltd., 7. Maya Gupta Vs. CIT, ITA No.5701/Del/2014, AY: 2009-10 4.2 On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that no enquiry…

Sterling Addlife India Private Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Pr. CIT-4, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 967/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.967/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14) बनाम/ Sterling Addlife India The Pr.Cit-4 Pvt.Ltd. Ahmedabad Vs. Sterling Hospital Buildings Off Gurukul Road Memnagar Ahmedabad-380 052 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadca 0897 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Dinal Shah & A.C.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/01/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax–4, Ahmedabad [Cit In Short] Dated 28/03/2018 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Dinal Shah & A.C.Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…59 ITR 502) (Relevant Para 6) 3. Ravi K. Modi v/s. ITO 151 Taxmann 11 (Ahmedabad ITAT) (Relevant Para of page 7 of the order) 4. Sansspareils Greenlands Pvt. Ltd. v/s. CIT 99 Taxman.com 222 (Delhi ITAT) (Relevant Para 5. To 5.9) 5. CIT v/s. Gabrial India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bombay-High Court) 6. CIT v/s. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (Delhi High Court) 332 ITR 167 (inadequate inquiry can not empowered CIT with revisional powers) 7. Netafim Irrigation India Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Pr. CIT-2, Baroda, ITA No. 864/Ahd/2016. Sterling Addlife India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT Asst.Year – 2013-14 16. The copy of the final sale deed dated 31st May,…

Philips India Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-IV, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1142/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…annot set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination without commenting or specifying as to how the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue:-  CIT v. Gabriel India Limited (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay)  CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2010) 341 ITR 537 (Delhi)  CIT vs. R.K. Metal Works (1978) 112 ITR 445 (P&H) 5.7. On the issue of excess depreciation, the ld. Sr. Advocate submitted that the assessee company is engaged in the manufacture of consumer lifestyle products and lighting products interalia through co-makers. Moulds were used by the…

Rpw Projects P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3836/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rpw Projects Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of (Earlier Known As Essel Rpw Income Tax Circle-8, Room Vs. Projects Private Limited 135, No. 611, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Continental Building Dr. Annie Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400020. 400018. Pan No. Aaecm1665J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. Advocate & : Mr. Rahul Hakani, Ar Revenue By : Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2019

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…holding the order being prejudicial to the interest of revenue in the 263 proceedings fails, the order u/s 263 is liable to be quashed. Referring to the decision in CIT v. Fashhions P. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 603 (HC) (606 & 607), CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom)(HC)( 117), the Ld. counsels argue that the AO’s action cannot be termed as erroneous simply because the Commissioner does not agree with his conclusions. Further, relying on the decision in MOIL India Ltd. v. CIT (2017) 396 ITR 244 (Bom), it is stated by them that where the disallowance is made on an ad-hoc percentage basis, the exercise of…

M/S. Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 2, New Delhi

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

ITA 3376/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Smt Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2012-13] M/S Celebi Delhi Cargo Management Vs. The Pr.C.I.T-2 India Pvt. Ltd New Delhi R. No. Ce-05, First Floor, Import Building – Ii, International Cargo Terminal, Igi Airport, New Delhi Pan : Aadcc 6885 B [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2019

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT- DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

…s not given any clear finding on the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act and, therefore, assessment order is 14 erroneous and in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 17. 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)…