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 366,005 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.

Township Real Estate Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Mumbai

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

ITA 3303/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankartownship Real Estate V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Developers Private Limited, बनाम Income Tax– 6, Room No. C-62, Vibgyor Tower, Bandra 501, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Kurla Complex, Bandra - East, Bhawan, Maharishi Karve Mumbai –400 051, Maharashtra Road, Mumbai–400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabct7356E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Nishith Khatri, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80G

…inable in law". Thus, in our considered view following Apex Court ruling the Revision orders passed by Ld. PCIT are not sustainable in law. Reference could also be made to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) (Bom)(HC) with regard to assumption of jurisdiction by the PCIT in the para below: P a g e | 7 A.Y. 2020-21 Township Real Estate Developers Private Limited "12. From the aforesaid definitions it is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law m…

M/S Enam Asset Management Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, grounds of

ITA 2756/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)
Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

…n law". Thus, in our considered view following Apex Court ruling the Revision orders passed by ld. PCIT are not sustainable in law. Reference could also be made to the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) (Bom)(HC) with regard to assumption of jurisdiction by the PCIT in the para below: "12. From the aforesaid definitions it is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the C…

Email Pharmaceuical Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-4, Mumbai

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

ITA 2079/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S Emil Pharmaceutical V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Industries Pvt. Ltd. बनाम Income Tax-4 101, Mangalam, Kulupwadi Room No. 629, Aayakar Road, Borivali East, Mumbai Bhawan, Maharishi Karve –400101, Maharashtra Road, Mumbai–400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace0922A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Anil Thakrar, CA (Virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

…e in law". 5.2 Thus, in our considered view following Apex Court ruling the Revision orders passed by Ld. PCIT are not sustainable in law. Reference could also be made to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) (Bom)(HC) with regard to assumption of jurisdiction by the PCIT in the para below: "12. From the aforesaid definitions it is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the…

Zari Silk (India) Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 600/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 148BSection 263Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR MkWa- ,e- ,y- ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ,oa MkWa- ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, AM & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 600/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2021-22 M/s Zari Silk (India) Pvt. Ltd. cuke Principal Commissioner of 10/11, Narain Singh Circle, Vs. Income Tax Jaipur (Central), Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACZ2642J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 599/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Ye…

Arun Palawat, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 599/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 148BSection 263Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR MkWa- ,e- ,y- ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ,oa MkWa- ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, AM & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 600/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2021-22 M/s Zari Silk (India) Pvt. Ltd. cuke Principal Commissioner of 10/11, Narain Singh Circle, Vs. Income Tax Jaipur (Central), Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACZ2642J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 599/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Ye…

Sha Pratapchand Pukharaj and Company, Vijayapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2547/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 253Section 253(5)Section 263

…e Commissioner, simply because according to him, the order should have been written 'more elaborately'. Recourse cannot be taken to section 263 to substitute the view of the Assessing Officer with that of the Commissioner. [See CITv. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom.)]. Sha Pratapchand Pukhraj and Company, Vijayapur Page 15 of 19 (viii) The exercise of statutory power under section 263 of the Act is dependent on existence of objective facts ascertained from prima faciematerial on record. The evaluation of such material should show that tax which was lawfully exigible was not imposed. [See Gabriel India…

Vanigota Sugar Trading Company, Vijapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2545/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 253(5)Section 263

…e Commissioner, simply because according to him, the order should have been written 'more elaborately'. Recourse cannot be taken to section 263 to substitute the view of the Assessing Officer with that of the Commissioner. [See CITv. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom.)]. (viii) The exercise of statutory power under section 263 of the Act is dependent on existence of objective facts ascertained from prima facie material on record. The evaluation of such material should show that tax which was lawfully exigible was not imposed. [See Gabriel India Ltd.'s case (supra)]. 9.3 Now, in the light of the above p…

Sprit Infrapower & Multiventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1589/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)

…(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT Vs. Max India Ltd (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). Also, support his drawn from the judgments of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) and CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd (1993)203 ITR 108 (Bom). Accordingly, not being able to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the view taken by the Pr.CIT that the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3), dated 23.12.2016 was erroneous insofar it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, we „set aside‟ his order and restore the order passed by the A.O.” 7. The ld. AR further submitted that…

Anil Kumar Batar, Sikar vs. PCIT-Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 263

…ide of the preview of assessment procedure”. And also held there is no case laws which say for deep investigations Because there is no limit of deep investigation. In the Act also no reference of the Deep inquiry or investigation.Alsorefer Gaberial India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom). That is why Hon'ble SC held in Malabar Fisheries Industries Ltd. 243 ITR 82 (SC) that in each and every type of mistake/ error cannot be made a basis to invoke Sec. 263. The case laws available on the subject on this aspect, are distinguishable in as much as those were the cases where no inquiries at all (or very minor reflecting from a s…

M/S. City Union Bank, Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, both the appeals for A

ITA 1479/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr. S. Ananthan, CA and Ms. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…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).” A similar view was taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma [2010 SCC OnLine Del 838], where in it was held that once it is inferred from the record of assessment that AO has applied his mind, the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act…

M/S. City Union Bank, Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, both the appeals for A

ITA 1478/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr. S. Ananthan, CA and Ms. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…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).” A similar view was taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma [2010 SCC OnLine Del 838], where in it was held that once it is inferred from the record of assessment that AO has applied his mind, the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act…

Giriraj Prasad, Kota vs. Income Tax Officer, Bundi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 603/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vinok Kumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148wSection 263Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री गगन गोयल, लेखा सदस्य, के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 603/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Giriraj Prasad Opp. ICICI Bank Jhalawar Kota, Kota. बनाम Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-Bundi. Bundi. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AQLPG2357F अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri Vinok Kumar Gupta, C.A. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gauta…

Kesar Buildcon Private Limited, Banaskantha vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the PCIT and restore the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The appeal of the assessee is thus allowed

ITA 790/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2021-2028 Kesar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. The Ld.Pr.Cit 1St Floor Shri Kesar Cold Vs. Ahmedabad-3 Storage Plot No.B-2 To 9, Rev Survey No.85/2 Paiki Near Hotel Jyoti Vil Banaskantha. Pan : Aabck 4923 E (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Hem Chhajed, Ar Assessee By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 269S

…roneous” merely because the PCIT has a different view on another issue which was never the subject matter of scrutiny. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) have laid down that for section 263 to be invoked, the twin conditions of error and prejudice must co-exist, and that a mere change of opinion or suspicion of inadequate inquiry does not confer jurisdiction. 5.9 On merits also, the assessee’s contention is well founded. The assessee company is not a shareholder in M/s Kesar Built Systems Pvt. L…

Altaf Ayoobbhai Vehvaria, Jamnagar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 27/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.26/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Jabir Ayoob Vahevaria Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Plot No.3452 Gidc 3, Dared Income-Tax, Jamnagar, Jamnagar-361 004 ( Gujarat) Vs. Room No.101, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.:Aeqpv3027C "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.27/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Altaf Ayoobbhai Vehvaria, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Prop. Of K A Enterprise, Ground Income-Tax, Floor, Near Alamin Park, Vs. Jamnagar, Room No.101, 1St Vehwaria Madresa, Jamnagar- 361 004 Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.: Aempv7317M "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit- Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट "यायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA Nos.26/RJT/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Jabir Ayoob Vahevaria Principal Commissioner of बनाम Plot No.3452 GIDC 3, Dared Income-tax, Jamnagar, Jamnagar-361 004 ( Gujarat) Vs. Room No.101, 1st Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. PAN/GIR No.:AEQPV3027C "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA Nos.27/RJT/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Y…

Jabir Ayoob Vahevaria, Jamnagar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 26/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.26/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Jabir Ayoob Vahevaria Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Plot No.3452 Gidc 3, Dared Income-Tax, Jamnagar, Jamnagar-361 004 ( Gujarat) Vs. Room No.101, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.:Aeqpv3027C "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.27/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Altaf Ayoobbhai Vehvaria, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Prop. Of K A Enterprise, Ground Income-Tax, Floor, Near Alamin Park, Vs. Jamnagar, Room No.101, 1St Vehwaria Madresa, Jamnagar- 361 004 Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.: Aempv7317M "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit- Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट "यायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA Nos.26/RJT/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Jabir Ayoob Vahevaria Principal Commissioner of बनाम Plot No.3452 GIDC 3, Dared Income-tax, Jamnagar, Jamnagar-361 004 ( Gujarat) Vs. Room No.101, 1st Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. PAN/GIR No.:AEQPV3027C "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA Nos.27/RJT/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Y…

Bhanwarlal Champalal Kanunga, Unjha vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1040/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1040/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Bhanwarlal Champalal Kanunga, The Principal A-43, Old Gunj Bazar, बनाम/ Commissioner Of V/S. Apmc Market Yard, Income Tax, Main Line, Ahmedabad-3, Unjha-384170. Ahmedabad. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acmpk0172H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Parmanand Khatri, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Revisional Order Dated 27.03.2025 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit”] Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Whereby The Assessment Order Dated 23.09.2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Bhanwarlal Champalal Kanunga. Vs. Pcit Assessment Year 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Parmanand Khatri, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

…wo views are possible and the AO has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. Similarly, in case of CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the Commissioner cannot initiate proceedings with a view to substitute his judgment for that of the AO. The Delhi High Court in CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [332 ITR 167] has also laid down that “inadequate enquiry” does not confer jurisdiction under section 263; only “lack of enquiry” would do so. 19. We hav…

Shri Jadisiddeshwar Urban Co Op Credit Society Limited, Sunadholi vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

The appeal stands PARTLY ALLOWED

ITA 150/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji26 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2020-21 Shri Jadisiddeshwar Urban Co-Operative Credit Society, Ltd. At Post: Sunadholi, Dist. Belgavi-591136 Pan:Aaaaj2715N . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Veeranna Murgod [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…CIT Vs Max India Ltd. ITAT-Panaji Page 7 of 12 Shri Jadisiddeshwar Urban Co-operative Credit Society, Ltd. Vs. PCIT ITA No.150/PAN/2025, AY: 2020-21 (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC), CIT v. Nahar Exports Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 494 (P&H), CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) Grasim Industries vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR, 92 (Bom). 8. Keeping in mind former settled legal position now reverting back to the present impugned order under challenge at the very outset we note that, it is an admitted fact that the appellant assessee is a co-operative society registered under State Co-operative society Act. The appellant fo…

Lokopayogi Ilakhe and Karnataka Neeravari Nowakarara Pattin Sangh Niyamit, Belagavi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 120/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.120/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21 ) Lokopayogi Ilakhe & Vs. Pr.Cit, Karnataka Neerawari C.R.Building, Nawakara Pattinsangn Niymit, Navanagar, 1,Fort, Hubli-580025, Belagavi-590016, Karnataka Karnataka. Pan .No.Aaaal1333J (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

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

…Lokopayogi ilakhe and Karnataka neerwari nawakara pattin sangh niymat. Ld. AR referred to the submissions, financial statements, judicial decisions and explanations filed before the A.O. We find the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd.(203 ITR 108) has observed as under: Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - Assessment year 1973-74 - Assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 99,326 described 'as plant relay out expenses' as revenue expenditure and ITO, after making enquiries in regard to nature of said expenditure and considering explanat…

The Belgaum Manufacturers Co-Op Industrial Estate Ltd, Belagavi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubbali

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

ITA 154/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.154/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21) The Belgaum Manufactures Vs. Pr.Cit, Co-Op Industrial Estate C.R.Building, Limited, Navanagar, 10 342/690,Udyambag, Hubli-580025, Belgaum-590008, Karnataka. Karnataka Pan .No.Aaaat7254J (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Pramod Y Vaidya.Ar Revenue By Shri.Captain Pradeep Arya.Cit.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 14.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20.08.2025 Pronouncement Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Hubli Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assesse Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Revision Order Passed By The Pr.Cit Set Aside The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is A Cooperative Society Registered Under Bombay Co-Operative

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

…he A.O. Whereas the A.O has applied his mind and verified the facts. The Ld. AR referred to the submissions, financial statements, judicial decisions and explanations filed before the A.O. We find the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd.(203 ITR 108) has observed as under: ITA Nos.154/PAN/2025 The Belgaum Manufacturers Co-op Industrial estate Ltd. Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - Assessment year 1973-74 - Assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 99,326 described 'as plant relay out expenses' as revenue expenditure and ITO, after makin…

The Sankeshwar Souhard Credit Sahakari Limited, Sankeshwar vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 118/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.118/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21 ) The Sankeshwar Souhard Vs. Pr.Cit, Credit Sahakari Ltd, C.R.Building, Cts.No.41443/B/234, Navanagar, Near Hanuman Temple, Hubli-580025, Nidasoshi Road, Karnataka Sankeshwar-591313, Karnataka. Pan .No.Aaaat8125C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

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

…sahakari Ltd.. the A.O has applied his mind and verified the facts. The Ld. AR referred to the submissions, financial statements, judicial decisions and explanations filed before the A.O. We find the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd.(203 ITR 108) has observed as under: Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - Assessment year 1973-74 - Assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 99,326 described 'as plant relay out expenses' as revenue expenditure and ITO, after making enquiries in regard to nature of said expenditure and considering explanat…