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.

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

In the result the grounds of

ITA 2263/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanlarsen & Toubro Infotech Pcit-2 Room No. 384, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Taxation Department, L&T House, 2Nd Floor, N.M. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan: Abgps5477E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri (AR)For Respondent: Shri N.S. Jangpangi (CIT-

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 92

…AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Malabar industrial Co Ltd Versus CIT 243 ITR 83(SC), CIT Versus Max India [2007 ] 295 ITR 282 (SC ), decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT versus Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108(Bombay), decision of Delhi High Court in case of CIT versus Escort Ltd [2011] 338 ITR 435(Delhi), Calcutta High Court in Russell properties Private Ltd Versus ACIT (109 ITR 229 (Calcutta). 6. On merit the ld AR for the assessee strongly relied upon the decision of Special Bench of Bangalore Tribunal in case of Bicon Ltd Versus DCIT (35 taxmann.co…

M/S. H.M. Agriexports Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. Pr. CIT, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2524/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2012-13 H.M. Agriexports Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit, Hm Agriexports, Muzaffarnagar. Chilkana Road, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh-247001 (Pan: Aacch5350D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Shri Piyush K. Kamal, D.K. Gandhi, Adv. Respondent By : Smt. Meeta Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.09.2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri Piyush K. Kamal, D.K. Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Meeta Singh, CIT DR

Section 263

…It is only in cases of "lack of inquiry" that the Commissioner is empowered to exercise his revisional powers by calling for and examining the records of any proceedings under the Act and passing orders thereon.” 8.2 In CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bom), it was expressly observed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court as under:- "The Commissioner cannot initiate proceedings with a view to starting fishing and roving enquiries in matters or orders which are already concluded. Such action will be against the well-accepted policy of law that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedi…

Shri Balaji Industries Complex, Badaun vs. CIT, Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2775/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2009-10 Balaji Industries Complex, Cit, Ismailpur, Moradabad-244001 Vs Badaun. (Pan: Abefs3007Q) Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Mr. Abhinav Mehrotra, Adv. Department By: Smt. Meeta Singh C.I.T. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.09.2018

For Appellant: Mr. Abhinav Mehrotra, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Meeta Singh C.I.T. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 48Section 50C

…Assessment year 2009-10 211, the Bangalore Bench of the ITAT held that where the A.O as examined and considered and issue, though not mentioned in the assessment order, it cannot be said that the order passed was erroneous. In CIT v Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that once the Assessing Officer has exercised the quasi-judicial power vested in him in accordance with law and arrived at a conclusion, such a conclusion cannot be considered erroneous simply because the commissioner does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. It may be that in the opinion of the comm…

Bajaj Resource Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT- 2, New Delhi

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

ITA 2838/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Bajaj Resources Ltd Vs. The Pr.C.I.T M/S Mgb & Co. Llp, J 16, New Delhi Lal Kothi Yojna, Sahakar Marg Behind Ioc Petrol Pump, Jaipur Pan : Aaacd 8001 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2018 Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Jhanwar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Aparna Karan, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jhanwar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Aparna Karan, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 18ASection 263

…o enquire in case of inadequate inquiry. Our view is fortified by the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi, [2016] 71 Taxmann.com 272 (Bombay)". 20. The Hon’ble 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 made an elaborate discussion in this regard…….”. 21. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Micro Inks Ltd. 85 Taxmann.com 310 has held that: “If the Assessing Officer has adopted a view which is a plausible one, the view would…

Smt. Burfi Devi, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4653/DEL/2014[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 1998-99

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajan Bhatia, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 251Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 1998-99 Income Tax Officer, vs Burfi Devi, Ward 36(4), Room No. L/H Shri Ombir Singh, 105, Village Gharoli, H Block, Vikas Bhawan, Delhi-110096 New Delhi. (PAN: ANFPD8250R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year: 1998-99 AND Asstt. Year: 1998-99 Burfi Devi, vs Income Tax Officer, L/H Shri Ombir Singh, Ward 36(4), Village Gharoli, New Delhi. Delhi-110096 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR Respondent by: Shri Rajan…

Smt. Burfi Devi, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4652/DEL/2014[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 1998-99

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajan Bhatia, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 251Section 263

ITO, New Delhi vs. Smt. Burfi Devi, Delhi

ITA 1104/DEL/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 1998-99

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajan Bhatia, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 251Section 263

Melaila Resorts Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 799/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Melaila Resorts Pvt. Ltd., V. Prl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-2 Room No.344, 3Rd Floor, Bharat Insurance Building, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 3Rd Floor, 15-A, Mumbai-400 020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaecm 9152 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. P. Daniel Department By : Shri V. Sreekar

For Appellant: Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(2)(i)

…Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: - a. CIT v. Max India Ltd., [295 ITR 282 (SC)] b. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., v. CIT [243 ITR 83 (SC)] c. Grasim Industries Ltd., v. CIT [321 ITR 92 (Bom.)] d. CIT. v. Gabriel India Ltd., [203 ITR 108 (Bom.)] e. M/s. Real Trade Technologies v. Prl. CIT in ITA.No. 2929/Mum/2016 dated 22.07.2016. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that no proper inquiries were made by the Assessing Officer and nothing has been dealt with by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order. Ld. DR also submitted that main object of the assessee does not provide…

Shekhar S. Dadarkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5255/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Cit-24, Bandra Kurla Prop. M/S S.D. Construction Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Geetanjali Chs Ltd., Plot Mumbai-400050. No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. Pan No. Adapd8694G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Dcit-24 Bandra Kurla Prop. M/S S.D. Construction Vs. (E), Mumbai-400050. Geetanjali Chs Ltd., Plot No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. Pan No. Adapd8694G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil A. Desai, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 31 /05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil A. Desai, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263Section 271B

…295 ITR 282 (SC); Moil Limited v. CIT (2017) 396 ITR 244 (Bom); Pr. CIT v. Ramchandra Naidu [Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2016] decided on July 24, 2017 by Bombay High Court; Idea Cellular Limited v. DCIT (2008) 301 ITR 407 (Bom); CIT v. Gabriel India Limited (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom); CIT v. Nirav Modi (2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom); Refex Industries Limited v. DCIT (ITA No. 972/Mds/2014) by ITAT ‘C’ Bench Chennai; Jeewanlal v. Addl. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 407 (Cal); M/s Superfine Agro Industries v. ITO [ITA No. 203 (Asr)/ 2014] by ITAT Amritsar; J. Thomas & Co. Private Limited v. JCIT [ITA No. 570/Kol/2012] by ITAT ‘A’ Bench Kol…

Milestone Real Estate Fund, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-25, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2509/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K Pradhanmilestone Real Estate Fund 402–A, Hallmark Business Plaza Sant Dhyaneshwar Marg ……………. Appellant Bandra, Mumbai 400 051 Pan – Aaati5880L V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–25(3), Mumbai Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Counsel A/W Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By : Shri Anand Mohan

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Counsel a/wFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan

Section 10Section 115USection 263

…T v/s Fine Jewellery India Ltd., [2015] 372 ITR 303 (Bom.); iv) M/s. Rallies India Ltd. v/s DCIT, ITA no.3564/Mum./2016, dated 13.04.2017; v) Gehna Jewlers Pvt. Ltd. v/s PCIT, ITA no.3530/Mum./ 2017, dated 22.11.201; and vi) CIT v/s Gabriel India Ltd., [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom.). 11. As regards the merits of the issue, the learned Sr. Counsel submitted, when the assessee is registered as a Venture Capital Fund and the Venture Capital Undertakings, wherefrom assessee has earned the income, are not mentioned in the negative list of SEBI regulations, assessee’s claim of exemption cannot be disallowed, since, all the…

Aditya Birla Retail Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 9, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3215/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253Section 263

…taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Unless the view taken by ITO is unsustainable in law.” Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs Gabrial India Ltd 203 ITR 108 (Bom), held that “the power of suo moto revision under subsection (1) of section 263 of the Act is in the nature of supervisory direction and can be exercised only if the circumstances specified therein exist. Two circumstances must exist to enable the CIT to exercise the power of revision under this sub section viz ( 1) the order should be erron…

Shri Shibsankar Ghosh, Nadia vs. Pr.CIT - 14, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 828/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 828/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shibsankar Ghosh -Vs- Pr. Cit-14, Kolkata [Pan: Agppg 7784 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.M.Roy, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Md. Usman, CIT DR

Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…O in the revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, which in our considered opinion, is not permissible as per law. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 203 ITR 108. Moreover, we find that in any case the loan was received by the assessee only in the earlier assessment year 2012-13 and not in assessment year 2013-14. Hence, in any case, there cannot be any addition that could be made in the hands of the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 i.e. the year under appeal in respect of the said loan. Hence the…

Lhotse Developerrs & Traders P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 12, Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2811/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Lhotse Developers & Traders Dcit, Ward 12(3)(2) Pvt. Ltd., Raheja Chambers, Room No. 363, Aayakar Linking Road, Santaxruz (West), Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400054. Mumbai-20. Pan: Aabcl0079N Apellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Nishit Gandhi (Ar) Respondent By : Shri R.P. Meena (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh;

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi (AR)For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Lhotse Developers & Traders DCIT, Ward 12(3)(2) Pvt. Ltd., Raheja Chambers, Room No. 363, Aayakar Linking Road, Santaxruz (West), Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400054. Mumbai-20. PAN: AABCL0079N Apellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Nishit Gandhi (AR) Respondent by : Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing : 02.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2018 ORDER PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. The instant appeal by assessee under section 253 of the Income-tax Act…

The J.K. Trust Bombay, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3769/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 263

…ssessing Officer. Hence, according to him, such loans were accepted by the Assessing Officer after making proper enquiries. 6. Proceeding further, he also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gabrial India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108, for the proposition that no adverse inference can be drawn merely because that elaborate discussion is not made in the assessment order. He also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P.) Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 244 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dy. CIT v.…

M/S.Oberon Edifices & Estates P. Ltd, Kochi vs. The Pr.CIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 361/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No. 361/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Oberon Edifices & Estates Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Oberon Mall, Income-Tax, Trivandrum. Nh Bye-Pass, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [Pan:Aaaco 7942E]

Section 263

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. No. 361/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. Oberon Edifices and Estates Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Oberon Mall, Income-tax, Trivandrum. NH Bye-pass, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [PAN:AAACO 7942E] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sherry Samuel Oommen, Adv. Revenue by Shri A. Dhanaraj, Sr. DR Date of hearing 19/06/2018 Date of pronouncement 23/07/2018 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee…

Maharashtra Airport Development, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80I

Manoir Petro India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

ITA 2626/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manoir Petro India Limited, Pr. Cit-1 602, B-Wing, Universal Room No.387, बनाम/ Business Park, Chandivali 3Rd Floor, Vs. Farm Road, Off Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aafcm5210J

Section 263

…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), xxiv. Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437/131 Taxman 535 (Punj. & Har.) (para 12), 20 Manoir Petro India Limited ITA No.2626/Mum/2015 & C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 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 S…

Vijay Kundu, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 808/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 808/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Vijay Kundu, Vs Pr. Cit, C/O Raj Kumar & Associates, Delhi-21, Cas, L-7A (Lgf), South Ext., New Delhi Part-2, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajnpk7914P Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2016 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-21, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 263

…ing case laws: " Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) " CIT Vs Raja Industries (2012) 340 ITR 344 (P&H) " Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. Vs S.P. (1957) 31 ITR 872 (Cal.) " CIT Vs T. Narayana Pai (1975) 98 ITR 422 (Kar.) " CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) 15. The ld. CIT cancelled the order passed by the AO and directed him to make fresh assessment by observing in para 3.2.4 of the impugned order as under: “In the assessment order under reference, I have noticed vital flaws which is inter alia, attributable to the defiant and deliberate approach of the assessee. Therefore, considering the f…

Mumbai Sez P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3429/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarmumbai Sez Limited Dcit, Cc-39. 1St Floor, Jai Centre, 34, P D Mello Road, Vs. Opp. Red Gate, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Aabcg2739C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Kumar Sanjay (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Kumar Sanjay (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 263

…taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Unless the view taken by ITO is unsustainable in law.” Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs Gabrial India Ltd 203 ITR 108 (Bom), held that “The power of suo moto revision under subsection (1) of section 263 of the Act is in the nature of supervisory direction and can be exercised only if the circumstances specified therein exist. Two circumstances must exist to enable the CIT to exercise the power of revision under this sub section viz ( 1) the order should be erron…

Shri Vinay Khanna, New Delhi vs. CIT, Meerut

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

ITA 3579/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Smt Beena A. Pillai[A.Y 2008-09] Shri Vinay Khanna Vs. The C.I.T Prop. M/S Veekay Express Meerut 171/3, Thapar Nagar Meerut

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Varma, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 263

…ewhere till date no action has been taken by the AO, but it cannot be said that the AO never made any verification on this count. 14. It is true that the assessment order is silent on this issue. 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)…