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.

Puja Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur

ITA 440/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; ikWy jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 440/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 Puja Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. cuke Principle Commissioner of C/o Chir Amrit Legal LLP, 6th Vs. Income Tax (Central), Floor, Unique Destination, Opp. Rajasthan Times of India, Tonk Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACP8449D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@…

M/S. Rbs Credit & Financial Development Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 3, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1156/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1156/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Rbs Credit & Financial Development Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Pcit-3, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 3300 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Md. Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A No. 1156/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s RBS Credit & Financial Development Pvt. Ltd. -vs- PCIT-3, Kolkata [PAN: AABCR 3300 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA For the Respondent : Shri Md. Usman, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 27.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 09.03.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Kolkata [in short the ld. CIT]…

Dolphin Pramoters and Builders, Raipur vs. C.I.T-1, Raipur

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 76/BIL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Ram Lal Negi)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. No: 76/Raipur/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dolphin Promoters and V/S CIT-1, Ayakar Bhavan, Builders A-1 Sai Nagar Central Revenue Building Devendra Nagar, Raipur Civil Lines, Raipur (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAEFD2588E Appellant by : Shri R. B. Doshi, C.A. Respondent by : Shri P.K. Mishra, D.R. (आदेश)/ORDER Date of hearing : 06 -03-2018 Date of Pronouncement : 08 -03-2018 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. With this appeal, the Assessee ha…

Apt Packaging Ltd., Pune vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax - 1

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 627/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev ThakkarFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 36(1)(vii)

…and for the aforesaid proposition, he relied on the decision in the case of Malabar Industrial Co., Ltd., Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). The Ld AR further placing reliance on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) submitted that Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that “An order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. The section does not visualise a case of substitution of judgment of the Commissioner for that of the ITO, who passed the order, unless the decision is held to be erroneous. He further submitted that the…

M/S Panchnath Enterprise, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Pr. Commr. of Income Tax-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

Appeals are allowed

ITA 139/RJT/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Feb 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri M. J. Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar, CIT. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 263

…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 Incom…

M/S. Rohan & Rajdeep Infrastructure, Pune vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 633/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80I

…and for the aforesaid proposition, he relied on the decision in the case of Malabar Industrial Co., Ltd., Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). The Ld AR further placing reliance on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) submitted that Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that “An order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. The section does not visualise a case of substitution of judgment of the Commissioner for that of the ITO, who passed the order, unless the decision is held to be erroneous. He further submitted that the…

M/S Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP, Usa, Kolkata vs. CIT, (It & Tp), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 540/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 540/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263Section 4Section 44A

…e made reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries Ltd. Vs CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC), the decision of the 6 7 M/s Pricewater house Coopers LLP USA A.Yr.2010-11 Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bomb) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Naba Investments vs Union of India 246 ITR 41 (Delhi). 8. The CIT after considering the aforesaid reply of the assessee was of the view that the AO has merely accepted the claim of the assessee without any verification whatsoever. He held that the records of assessment did not show that any…

Sme Growth Fund, Mumbai vs. CIT - 15, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee,in part

ITA 2638/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2018AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Sanjay-CIT-DR
Section 142Section 161(1)Section 263

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “आई मुंबई आई आई” खंडपीठ आई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ म"म"म"म" खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“I”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं सी. एन. "साद, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and C. N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./2638/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./2878/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर…

Noble Medicals Bcjc Hospitals, Mumbai vs. CIT City-16, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3207/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Noble Medicals Bcjc Cit, City-16, Hospitals, S.V. Road, Santacruz, Mumbai. Mumbai-400054. Versus Pan No.Aagfn4356A Applicant Respondent

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

…e is made on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)] and CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex [(2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC)] and decision of jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom)]. In other alternative submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the order is invalid as the AO adopted and followed one of the possible views 7 ITA No. 3207/M/17- M/s Noble Medicals BCJC Hospitals while passing the assessment order. Merely facts that some other alternative method could fetch more revenue or the commission is n…

Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (HUF), Mumbai vs. Jt CIT RG 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1435/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhbibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Cit-19, Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Piramal Chambers, Parel, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Jt.Cit-Range-19(1), Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi (Ar Revenue By : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 .02.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi (ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263

…e is made on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)] and CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex [(2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC)] and decision of jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom)]. 5. In other alternative submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the order is invalid as the AO adopted and followed one of the possible views while passing the assessment order. Merely facts that some other alternative method could fetch more revenue or the commission is not in agreement with the view taken by AO would not ren…

Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (HUF), Mumbai vs. CIT 19, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5129/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhbibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Cit-19, Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Piramal Chambers, Parel, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Jt.Cit-Range-19(1), Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi (Ar Revenue By : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 .02.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi (ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263

…e is made on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)] and CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex [(2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC)] and decision of jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom)]. 5. In other alternative submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the order is invalid as the AO adopted and followed one of the possible views while passing the assessment order. Merely facts that some other alternative method could fetch more revenue or the commission is not in agreement with the view taken by AO would not ren…

Startech Engineers, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 22, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3898/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Startech Engineers, Pr. Commissioner Of G-12, Sinhgarjane Soc. Income Tax-22, बनाम/ Maratha Colony, Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Vs. Santracruz (E), Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaxfs3063J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri D.C.Saboo & Shri Shyam Saboo राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Manjunatha Swamy-Dr

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)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…

The Asst Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri K.C.K.A.Gupta

The Appeal is dismissed

ITTA/251/2005HC Telangana03 Jan 2018

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

For Appellant: Mr.J.V.PrasadFor Respondent: Mr.C.P.Ramaswami
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 263

…? Cases cited: 2000 Law Suit (SC) 305 = 2000 (243) ITR 83 2007 Law Suit (SC) 1524 = 2007 (295) ITR 282 Referred Case No.18 of 2001, Dated: 22-12-2017 (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) CVNR, J & TA, J ITTA.No.251 of 2005 Dt: 03-01-2018 3 The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy and The Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Amarnath Goud ITTA.No.251 of 2005 Dt: 03-01-2018 Between: The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh – IV, Hyderabad ….Appellant and Sri KCKA.Gupta,…

Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT, Central - 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1898/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 263Section 263o

…as invoked his powers u/s.263 of the Act. He has not spelt out in the impugned order as to what was the kind of enquiry that the AO ought to have made and which he failed to make. In the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel 203 ITR 108 (Bom) cited by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee, it has been laid down that the consideration of the Commissioner as to whether an order is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, must be based on materials on the record of the proceedings called for by him. If there are no materials on record on the basis of w…

Ram Naresh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Central-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1897/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 263Section 263o

…as invoked his powers u/s.263 of the Act. He has not spelt out in the impugned order as to what was the kind of enquiry that the AO ought to have made and which he failed to make. In the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel 203 ITR 108 (Bom) cited by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee, it has been laid down that the consideration of the Commissioner as to whether an order is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, must be based on materials on the record of the proceedings called for by him. If there are no materials on record on the basis of w…

Shyam Sundar Agarwal, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT, Central - 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1896/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 263Section 263o

…as invoked his powers u/s.263 of the Act. He has not spelt out in the impugned order as to what was the kind of enquiry that the AO ought to have made and which he failed to make. In the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel 203 ITR 108 (Bom) cited by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee, it has been laid down that the consideration of the Commissioner as to whether an order is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, must be based on materials on the record of the proceedings called for by him. If there are no materials on record on the basis of w…

Vinod Agarwal, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Central-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1895/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 263Section 263o

…as invoked his powers u/s.263 of the Act. He has not spelt out in the impugned order as to what was the kind of enquiry that the AO ought to have made and which he failed to make. In the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel 203 ITR 108 (Bom) cited by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee, it has been laid down that the consideration of the Commissioner as to whether an order is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, must be based on materials on the record of the proceedings called for by him. If there are no materials on record on the basis of w…

Anil L Taodarwal, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3498/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3498/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Anil L. Todarwal Pr. Cit-19, Room No. 228, 43, Satyam Industrial Estate, बिधम/ 2Nd Floor Matru Mandir, Subhash Road, Jogeshwari Tardeo Road Vs. (E), Mumbai- 400060 Mumbai-400007 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpt4329D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी /Respondent) :

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Yadav, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 263Section 263(1)Section 40

…sment order. The ld. A.R in support of his aforesaid contention relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Fine Jewellery (India) ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom) and Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gabrial India Ltd.(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom). It was thus submitted by the ld. A.R that the Principal CIT had exceeded his jurisdiction and revised the assessment order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) of the Act. Per contra, the ld. Departmental representative (for short ‘D.R’) submitted that a perusal of the records of the assessee revealed that the assessee had paid the foreign…

ITO 2(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Canara Bank Securities Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 821/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-2(1)(4), M/S Canara Bank Securities Room No.553, 5Th Floor, Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 7Th Floor, Maker Chamber-Iii, Vs. M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaacg2218H

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 56

…ew with that of the AO which is impressible under proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. The assessee company relied upon the following decisions to advance and support its contentions: (i) CIT v. Max India Limited 295 ITR 282 (Bom.) (ii) CIT v Gabriel India Limited 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) (iii) Mrs Praveen P Bharucha v. DCIT 348 ITR 325(Bom.) The assessee company also submitted that in the orders dated 19th March 2013 u/s 263 of the Act, the CIT has observed 9 Canara Bank Securities Ltd. that this issue is not free from doubt that the income earned by the assessee company from fixed deposits kept with the banks could be as…

Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT 14, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 360/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Idea Cellular Limited Principal Commissioner Of 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Income Tax-14, Century Mills Compound, 469, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacb2100P

For Appellant: Jehangir D Mistri &For Respondent: B.C.S. Naik, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 35ASection 37(1)

…(SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC).” 14. Similarly, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.), wherein it is held as under: - “14. We, therefore, hold that in order to exercise power under sub-section (1) of section 263 of the Act there must be material before the Commissioner to consider that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. We have already he…