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.

Pravardhan Seeds Priavate Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 667/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Years: 2012-13 Pravardhan Seeds Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaaafcp0118A

For Appellant: Shri C.S. SubramanyamFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai

Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…is fortified by the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. 10 I.T.A. No. 667/Hyd/17 Pravardhan Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Fine Jewellery (India) ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom), Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gabrial India Ltd.(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and MOIL Ltd. Vs. CIT-1, Nagpur (2017) 396 ITR 244 (Bom). We thus in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations are of a strong conviction that the Principal CIT had traversed beyond the scope of his jurisdiction and revised the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3), dated 29.01.2015, which as observed by us hereinabove, was passed by t…

Ramesh Kumar Goyal HUF, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Hisar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1983/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaidr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar Ito, H.No.467, Urban Estate-Ii, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…accepted the same. Then the CIT cannot hold that the AO should have made further inquiries rather than accepting the explanation. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a case of ’lack of inquiry'.{CIT vs. Gabrial India Ltd. (1993) 114 CTR (Bom) 81 : (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) relied on}. 7. The Ld.AR further relied on the judgement in the case of Income Tax Officer Vs. Dg Housing Projects Ltd (2012) 343 ITR 0329 (Delhi) where in it was held that Section 263 has been enacted to empower the CIT to exercise power of revision and revise any order passed by the Assessing Officer, if two cumulative conditions are sat…

Ramesh Kumar, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Hisar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaidr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar Ito, H.No.467, Urban Estate-Ii, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

M/S. Sri Balaji Forgings (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 3216/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Advocates &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…. detail and was satisfied with the genuineness of the transaction with the Investor, therefore, Ld. Pr. CIT should not substitute his opinion to that of the A.O. and relied upon decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108. He has submitted that when the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were the very same reasons for which the Ld. Pr. CIT had invoked jurisdiction under section 263 of the I.T. Act, invocation of Section 263 of the Act is not tenable. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikramaditya and Asso…

Jitinder Singh Chadha, New Delhi vs. Prcit-18, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. Cit-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpc6181D Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit-18, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble Vice President and Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Judicial Member ITA No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. CIT-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABPC6181D Assessee by : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CA Revenue by : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 31.03.2018 of ld. Pr. CIT-18, New De…

Nuwave Esolutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3231/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamblenuwave Esolutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Cit(A) 3Rd Floor, District Centre, Delhi-V Dda Building, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Aabcn5790Q (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 40Section 92

…Dot Finance Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT(A) 38 DTR 220 (Mumbai) xiv CIT(A) vs. Hindustan Marketing and Advertising Co. Ltd. 46 DTR 109 (Del.) xv. Raj Shyama Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT 135 TTJ 33 (Del.) xvi. CIT(A) vs. Hero Auto Ltd. 343 ITR 342 (Del.) xvii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom)- xviii. 348 ITR 485 (Del) (FB) The Ld. AR further submitted that when the deduction u/s 10A has been dealt by the Assessing Officer in original assessment u/s 143(3) (PB 30-41) in most extensive manner and ultimately disallowed the claim, then how that order can be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the order under rev…

M/S. Achyut Cashew Factory, Kolhapur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax : II

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1081/PUN/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1081/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Ms. Divya Bajpai

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)

…ent order under section 143(3) of the Act and there was no apparent error on the face of order. The order passed u/s 263(1) by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax is nothing but change of opinion as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Gabriel India in 203 ITR 108. 3. The present appeal is against exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 by the Commissioner against assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act. 4. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the Commissioner in para 2 notes that the case was selected for scrutiny as per CASS for the reason to examine large amount not credited to Profit and…

Alok Kumar Sarkar, Hooghly vs. CIT, Kolkata-8, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 454/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Alok Kumar Sarkar..................………...................................…..……………….…...……..…….............Appellant C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Seben Brothers’ Lodge P.O. Buroshibtala P.S. Chinsurah Dist. Hooghly Pin – 712 105 [Pan : Akkps 9552 R] Vs. Commissioner Of Income-(8), Kolkata...............................................………………...…...........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 6Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 40A(3)

…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-…

Motiwala & Sons, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 17, New Delhi

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

ITA 2756/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Raja Ram Sah, CIT- DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

…cal Works 309 ITR 67 has observed that if the assessment order were to incorporate reasons for upholding the claim made by an assessee, result would be an epitome and not an assessment order. 21. The Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108 has held that the decision of the ITO cannot be held to be erroneous simply because in his order he did not make an elaborate discussion in this regard. 22. In the light of the aforementioned ratio, we have no hesitation to hold that the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings made detail and specific enquiries in relation…

M/S. K Kalpana Infrastructures Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT, Central - 1, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 814/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member Assessment Year:2013-14 M/s Kkalpana Industries Principal Commissioner of बनाम (India) Ltd., Rajkuthir, 2B, Income Tax, Central-1, / Pretoria Street, Kolkata-71 V/s. Kolkata [PAN No. AABCK 2239D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 20-08-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 06-11-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pro…

Ultratech Cement Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Central - 1, Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2999/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhita No. 3000/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ita No. 3001/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde &For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, D.R

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 263(2)Section 80I

…ld. A.R further stated the Pr. CIT has set aside the assessment orders for fresh verification without concluding as to how the order passed by the A.O was erroneous. In defence his argument the ld. counsel relied on the decision of CIT Vs. Gabrial India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 wherein it has been held that the order of the A.O cannot to be erroneous simply because there was no elaborate discussion with regards to the issue when the A.O raised specific query and assessee replied thereto and therefore, the A.O cannot be asked to review the matter which is wrong and against the provision of the Act. In the present case is…

Shree Swami Samartha Developers, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Ward - 21, Mumbai

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

ITA 2969/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 263

…inance & Leasing Co. Ltd (2013)(354 ITR 180). He submitted that the said decision is applicable only to flats held as stock in trade. In support of all his submissions, the Ld A.R placed his reliance on the following case laws:- (a) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd (203 ITR 108)(Bom) (b) The CIT vs. M/s Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd (IT Appeal No.296 of 2013) (c) Grindlays Bank Ltd vs. ITO (1978)(115 ITR 799)(Cal), wherein the significance of notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and the explanations furnished by the assessee are dealt with. 7. The ld D.R, on the contrary, submitted that the Rule of Consistency can be devia…

Celebi Delhi Cargo Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3182/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhary[Assessment Year: 2011-12] M/S Celebi Delhi Cargo Management Vs. The Pr.C.I.T India Pvt. Ltd New Delhi R. No. 23, Import Building - 3 International Cargo Terminal Igi Airport, New Delhi Pan : Aadcc 6885 B [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT- DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

…has not given any clear finding on the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act and, therefore, assessment order is erroneous and in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 21. 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)…

Metropolitan Stock Exchange of India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 14, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4081/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sumant Chadha &

Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 263

…at the impugned issues have received the attention of the Assessing Officer and, therefore, there is no error of Jack of inquiry in the assessments concluded. Reliance was accordingly placed on a slew of judicial precedents such as C1T v. Gabriel India [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom), CIT v. Quality Steel Suppliers Complex, 84 taxmann.com 234 - 2017 (SC)P MOIL v, CIT, 8 taxmann.com 420 - 2017(Bom). CIT n Gen Developments (P) Uil. 71 taxrnan.corn 65 - 2016 (Bom), Pr CIT v. Kttmc/iam/ni Nttidn - R5 taxmun.com 127 - 2017 (Bom), and Melacaps Engineering & Mahindra Construction Co. - 86 tax man, com 128 - 2017 ITAT Mumbai Be…

Acc Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4581/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acc Ltd. (Formerly Known Commissioner Of As The Associated Cement Income Tax-Ltu Vs. Companies Ltd.) Cement Mumbai. House, 121, M.K. Road, Mumbai. Pan No. Aaact1507C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. R.P. Meena, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/10/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. R.P. Meena, CIT DR

Section 263Section 32

…of revenue, the order cannot be treated as ‘erroneous’ for the purpose of section 263. In this regard the Ld. counsel relies on the decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (243 ITR 83) (SC), CIT v. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282) (SC), CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) (Bom HC), CIT v. Grasim Industries Ltd. (2014) 226 Taxman 165 (Bom HC), CIT v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 458/272 CTR 10 (Bom HC) and Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom HC). Further the Ld. counsel submits that both conditions of section 263 i.e. order is ‘erroneous’ and ‘prejudicial to the interest of revenue’ are…

M/S. Sanspareils Greenlands Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

ITA 695/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2008-09 Sanspareils Greenlands Cit, Pvt. Ltd. 28/32, Victoria Park Vs. Meerut Meerut Pan : Aaccs2788N Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, adv., Sh. Deepesh JainFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…e had to Section 263(1) of the Act [See Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)]. 5.2 As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the 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 terms as "erroneous" unless it is not in accordance w…

M/S Sanspareils Greenlands Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

ITA 3225/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, adv., Sh. Deepesh JainFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

Gumpro Drilling Fluids Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 15, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2868/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Gumpro Drilling Fluids Vs Pr. Cit-15, Private Limited, Room No.517, 5Th Floor, Opp. Karma Stambha, Aayakar Bhavan, Hazarat Compound, Lbs M. K. Road, Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400083 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcg2319N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Ashok J. Patil राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri L.K.S. Dahiya Cit-Dr

Section 120Section 144ASection 263Section 35

…aras 9, 10), xxi. Anil Rice Mills v. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 236/[2005] 149 Taxman 313 (All.) (paras 9, 10), xxii. CIT v. Five Vision Promoters (P.) Ltd. [2016] 380 ITR 289/236 Taxman 502/65 taxmann.com 71 (Delhi) (para 11), xxiii. CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108/71 Taxman 585 (Bom.) (para 12), 18 xxiv. Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437/131 Taxman 535 (Punj. & Har.) (para 12), xxv. CIT v. Leisure Wear Exports (P.) Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 166/[2011] 202 Taxman 130/11 taxmann.com 54 (Delhi) (para 13), xxvi. Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) (para 14), xxvii. Lalchand Bhagat Am…

Durgesh Autofin P.Ltd, Bijnor vs. Prcit, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2539/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2539/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Durgesh Autofin P. Ltd., Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Director, Muzaffarnagar-251002 S/O Late Sh. Tejpal Singh, Mandi Kotla, Near Nehru Murti, Chandpur, Bijnot, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd0768P Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rachna Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit, Muzaffarnagar U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 271DSection 41(1)Section 68

…which pertained to the raw material purchased by the assessee in the earlier years, could not have been added as unexplained credit as the same did not pertain to this year. 15. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) " CIT Vs Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (2008) 301 ITR 384 (Del.) 16. It was further submitted that in the present case although books had been rejected u/s 145(3) of the Act but no doubt had been expressed by the AO in respect of the purchases of the raw material made from the parties during the year under consideration. It was further…

Maharashtra Cricket Association, Pune vs. CIT-1, Pune

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1177/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1177/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Maharashtra Cricket Association, 5Th Floor, Amar Avinash Corporate City, 10, Bund Garden Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaatm2192D Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CIT and Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.1177/PUN/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Maharashtra Cricket Association, 5th Floor, Amar Avinash Corporate City, 10, Bund Garden Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. PAN: AAATM2192D Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant by : S/Shri C.H. Naniwadekar, R.R. Pethe प्रत्यथी की ओर स…