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.

Late Smt. Giriraj Kaur L/H Sri Ravinder Gill, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 931/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishilate Smt. Giriraj Kaur, Vs. Ito, C/O. L/H Sri Ravinder Gill, Ward-1(2), 861, Mangal Bhawan, Muzaffarnagar Bhopa Road, Muzaffarnagar Pan: Dtppk0005J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT Dr
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

…the bare reading of section 263 makes it clear that the CIT has to be satisfied of twin conditions. As regards the scope and ambit of expression “erroneous”, Hon‟ble Court has relied upon the judgement of Bombay High Court in CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108, wherein, after discussing the dictionary meaning of the term “erroneous” have held that it is clear that an order cannot be termed as an “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…

Ashok M Jain, Navi Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 28, Mumbai

In the result, ground of appeal raised by

ITA 6764/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhmr. Ashok M. Jain, Pr. Cit-28, Room No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi B-2501, Emerald Bay Chs, Plot No. R3/B, Off. Palm Railway Station Complex, Beach Road, Nr. B.P. Petrol Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703. Pump, Sector-14, Nerul, Navi Mumbai-400706. Pan: Aaipj9350L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri V.D. Parmar (Ar) Respondent By : Shri R.P. Meena (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income -Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. The Instant Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 263 Of Income Tax Act Dated

For Appellant: Shri V.D. Parmar (AR)For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 164Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263Section 67A

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Ashok M. Jain, Pr. CIT-28, Room No. 301, 3rd Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi B-2501, Emerald Bay CHS, Plot No. R3/B, Off. Palm Railway Station Complex, Beach Road, Nr. B.P. Petrol Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703. Pump, Sector-14, Nerul, Navi Mumbai-400706. PAN: AAIPJ9350L Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri V.D. Parmar (AR) Respondent by : Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing : 01.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2018 Order under Section 254(1) of Income -Tax Act PER…

Eagle Home Appliances P. Ltd ( Formerly M.S, Trder Team Ltd) vs. CIT-7

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

ITA 5419/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 May 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.5419/Mum/2008 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Eagle Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly M/S. Trade Team Ltd.) 4Th Floor, Parmar Gallery, Wanowrie, Pune – 411 040 अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan :Aaact3316M …. Vs. Ito, Ward-7(3)-(2) …. ""यथ" / Respondent Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 263

…with rest of the areas identified by the CIT in pointing out the failure of the AO in verifying the details during the regular assessment proceedings. Therefore, relying on the jurisdictional High Court’s judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that section 263 of the Act ought not be invoked in cases where multiple views are possible on an issue and a view is already taken by the AO in the matter during the regular assessment. 9. Further, mere failure of the AO in completing certain procedures in matters of investigation or enquiry on an issu…

The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. the Grand Bhagwati Banquests and Hotels Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2528/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2528/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Dcit, M/S. The Grand बनाम/ Circle – 4(1)(2), Bhagwati Banquets Vs. Ahmedabad. & Hotels Ltd., 301, P Circle, Honest Cross Road, S.C. Highway, Ahmedabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb 6825 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri T. Sankar Sr. D.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. N. Divatia, A.R.

For Respondent: Shri S. N. Divatia, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘lh lhlh lh’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ C ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD LkoZJh olhe vgen] ys[kk lnL; ,oa egkohj izlkn] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{kA LkoZJh olhe vgen] ys[kk lnL; ,oa egkohj izlkn] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{kA LkoZJh olhe vgen] ys[kk lnL; ,oa egkohj izlkn] U;kf;d lnL; ds LkoZJh olhe vgen] ys[kk lnL; ,oa egkohj izlkn] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{kA le{kA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2528/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) DCIT, M/s. The Grand बनाम/ Circle – 4(1)(2), Bhagwati Banquets…

Smt.K.B.Sony, Cochin vs. The DCIT, Cochin

In the result, i) The appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 320/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 May 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 69

…nds. The finding of the CIT is only on the reason that he was not satisfied with the conclusion reached by the Assessing Officer by passing the impugned assessment order. The Ld. AR also relied on the following judgments: i) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) ii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. ClT (2000) 243 ITR 83(SC) 13.3 The Ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT. 13.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. Para 9 In the present case, the assessment order was completed u/s, 143(3) of the Act after due enquiries and after being satisfied with the explanations and infor…

Mumbai Kamgar Madhyawarti, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 20, Mumbai

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

ITA 3770/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan &For Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 72

…inable in law”. In our view, the aforesaid proposition is quite well understood in the context of the mechanics of Sec. 263 of the Act and, in fact, the same can also be found approved by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) and also again in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC). 9. In the above background, now we may come back to the factual position of the manner in which the assessment order has been passed in the instant case. Before looking at the specifics, we may point-out that whether or not…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. M/S. Bundy India Ltd., Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2892/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: The Hon'Ble Gujarat High Court & Further In Order To Keep The Matter Alive, A Second Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Wherein The Order U/S 143(3) Rws 263 Of The Act Dtd. 20.03.2015, Has Been Annulled.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. D.R
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 40Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2008-09 The DCIT, Bundy India Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1), 2, GIDC, Industrial 1st Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs Estate, Makarpura, Race Course Circle, Baroda-390014 Vadodara-390007 PAN: AAACB3039M (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. D.R. Assessee by: None Date of hearing : 24-04-2018 Date of pronouncement : 22-05-2018 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2008-09, arises from order of the…

General Computer Services International, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 31, Mumbai

ITA 2459/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anant N. Pai, A.RFor Respondent: Sh. Jayant Kumar, CIT, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

…w as against that arrived at by the A.O. The Ld. A.R. in support of his aforesaid contention relied on 10 General Computer Services International Vs. Pr. CIT-31 the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) & CIT Vs. Fine Jewellery (I) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom) and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) & CIT Vs. Greenworld Corporation (2009) 314 ITR 81 (SC). It was further vehemently submitted by the Ld. A.R. that as the A.O after making necessary inquiries and perusing the…

Saigal Sea Trade, Mumbai vs. CIT -18, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2511/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

Section 142(1)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), 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 Ambica…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3609/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 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), 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 Ambica…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3608/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 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), 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 Ambica…

Sharad Bhagwat Tembwalkar, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 27, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 530/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhmr. Sharad Bhagwant Principle Commissioner Of Tembwalkar, Flat No. 1501, Income-Tax -27 Adonis Building, Raheja Mumbai. Acropolis, Near Telecom Vs. Factory, Govanid, Mumbai -400088 Pan:Advpt6884B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Dhiren P. Talati (Ar) Revenue By : Sh. Manjunatha Swamy (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act (‘The Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax -27, Mumbai

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiren P. Talati (AR)For Respondent: Sh. Manjunatha Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54F

…ng decision: 1. CIT Vs. Fine Jewellery (I) Ltd. (Bombay High Court). 2. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC). 3. Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. CIT 301 ITR 407 (Bom. High Court) 4. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC). 5. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom. High Court). 6. Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 321 ITR 92 (Bom. High Court). 7. CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 ( Del. High Court). 8. Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO (ITA No. 2690 & 2691) (Mum ITAT). 9. PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 705) (Del. High Court). 10. Amira Pure Foods (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITA No. 3205) (Del.…

M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2521/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…in him in accordance with law, cannot be termed erroneous merely because the Commissioner does not feel satisfied with the conclusions reached. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), wherein it was held as under: "The Commissioner, on perusal of the records, may be of the opinion that the estimate made by the officer concerned was on the lower side and left to the Commissioner he would have estimated the income at a higher figure than the one determined by the Income-tax Officer. That would not vest the Commissioner wi…

M/S. Cliff Trexim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2520/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…in him in accordance with law, cannot be termed erroneous merely because the Commissioner does not feel satisfied with the conclusions reached. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), wherein it was held as under: "The Commissioner, on perusal of the records, may be of the opinion that the estimate made by the officer concerned was on the lower side and left to the Commissioner he would have estimated the income at a higher figure than the one determined by the Income-tax Officer. That would not vest the Commissioner wi…

M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2519/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…in him in accordance with law, cannot be termed erroneous merely because the Commissioner does not feel satisfied with the conclusions reached. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), wherein it was held as under: "The Commissioner, on perusal of the records, may be of the opinion that the estimate made by the officer concerned was on the lower side and left to the Commissioner he would have estimated the income at a higher figure than the one determined by the Income-tax Officer. That would not vest the Commissioner wi…

K.K. Enterprises, Mumbai vs. CIT 25, Mumbai

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

ITA 2859/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2859/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. K. K. Enterprises Cit – 25, बनाम/ C-11, 2Nd Floor, M/S. Sahakar Developers 5, Sai Sadan, Roshan Nagar, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Borivali West, Mumbai-400 092 Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Sriniwas

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri B. Sriniwas
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 245CSection 245ESection 263

…ue also as nothing has been brought on record and discussed in the assessment order while accepting the undisclosed income at Rs.6031047/- against the on-money received at Rs.1,65,62,330/- The assessee has further cited case law of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bom) in which the Assessing Officer had made enquires in regard to nature of 6 M/s. K. K. Enterprises expenditure incurred by the assessee in which the assessee had given detailed explanation with regard of the expenditure in writing and being satisfied by the explanation of the assessee. The Assessing Officer had accepted the expenditure as gen…

M/S Mahakali Developers & Resorts (P) Ltd, Patiala vs. Pr. CIT, Patiala

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1324/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok GoyalFor Respondent: Sh. Manu Malik
Section 142(1)Section 263

…essee or any other person.” We find that this not acceptable as the Assessing Officer has made due enquiries with regard to loans as well as fixed assets. 9. Hon’ble high court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner Of Income- Tax vs Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) held under similar facts and circumstances that : “263. Revision of orders prejudicial to Revenue. - (1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Income- tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Reven…

Mumbai District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1(1), Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3198/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

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

…was duly reflected in the assessment order of the chit fund which was also an assessee. The order of revision was not valid. While coming to a particular conclusion, the Hon'ble Court considered the following decisions:- i. CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (paras 10, 11, 13) ii. CIT v. Kashi Nath and Co. [1988] 170 ITR 28 (All) (para 16) iii. CIT v. Minalben S. Parikh (Smt.) [1995] 215 ITR 81 (Guj) (para 11) 9 The Mumbai District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. iv. CIT v. Narayana Pai (T.) [1975] 98 ITR 422 (Karn) (para 11) v. CIT v. R. K. Metal Works [1978] 112 ITR 445 (P&H) (para 17) vi. CIT v. S…

ACIT Cir 7(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Laxmi Venture (India) Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6379/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Circle-7(1)(2) M/S. Laxmi Venture India Room No.130, First Floor, बनाम/ Ltd., 36/40, Mahalaxmi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bridge Arcade, Vs. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 037 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacl1982G यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Haridas Bhat याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Ms. Aarju Garodia ुनवाई की तायीख / 12/03/2018 Date Of Hearing : आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 12/03/2018

Section 263Section 73

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ, जे, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI श्री जोगगन्दय स िंह, न्मायमक दस्म एवुं श्री एन. के. प्रधान, रेखा दस्म, के भक्ष Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 ACIT, Circle-7(1)(2) M/s. Laxmi Venture India Room no.130, First Floor, बनाम/ Ltd., 36/40, mahalaxmi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bridge Arcade, Vs. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 037 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAACL1982G यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee by Shri Haridas Bhat याजस्व की ओर से /…

Adishwar K. Jain, Thane vs. Comm of Income Tax 26, Mumbai

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

ITA 3389/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena & Shri V. Justin
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 4Section 80G

…of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs New Delhi 14 Adishwar K. Jain Television Ltd., 360 ITR 44 (Delhi) and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bom.). Notably, in the instant case, the error of ‘lack of necessary inquiry’ made out by the Commissioner is based on the cash summary/statements prepared by him after procuring the copies of the bank statements, etc., a material which was not available on record of the proceedings at the time of initiation of proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. At…