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 366,314 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.

Axcel Global Services, Mumbai vs. CIT 13, Mumbai

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2446/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Cn Prasad & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal: (A.Y : 2009-10) M/S Axcel Global Services Vs. The Cit 13 Prabhat Palace, Behind Laxmi Bhawan Aayakar Bhavan Lajpatrai Road, Vile Parle West M.K.Marg Mumbai – 400 056 New Marine Lines Pan : Aaofa1550D Mumbai – 400 056 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri AV SondeFor Respondent: Shri RP Meena

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…in the assessment order. For this proposition he places reliance on the following decisions. (a) CIT Vs. Trustees Anupam Charitable Trust [167 ITR 129] (Raj.) (b) CIT Vs. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust [171 ITR 698] (All.) (c) CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [203 ITR 108] (Bom.) 6. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee further placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd Vs. CIT [203 ITR 108] submits that the Ld. Commissioner cannot initiate proceedings with a view to make fishing and roving inquiries in matters or orders which are already concluded based on the i…

Small Wonder Industries, Mumbai vs. CIT 24, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2464/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Small Wonder Industries, Cit-24, 78, Virwani Indl. Estate, Mumbai बनाम/ Western Express Highway, Vs. Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400063 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aalfs6318Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Prakash Jotwani Shri Debasis Chandra Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2017 24/02/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. So far as, non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer is concerned under the facts narrated in this order, reliance can be placed upon the ratio laid down in following cases:- i. CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) ii. CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (320 ITR 674)(Del.) iii. CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. (294 ITR 310) (Del.) iv. Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT (263 ITR 437) (P&H) v. CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (323 ITR 206) (Bom.) vi. RCI Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 40 DTR Mum (Trb.) 186 vii. Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CIT(2014) (100 DTR 1)(Mum.)…

M/S Hero Honda Motors Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2148/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh C.M.Garg & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Honda Motors Ltd, Dcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, Circle-12(1), Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacg0812J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. AK Saroha, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 9

…d by the revenue that on the basis of subsequent decision of the tribunal it could not be said that the view taken by the Assessing Officer was a possible view. ii. He further referred to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bombay) to contend that when the AO has made disallowance on the estimate basis the ld CIT does not have power to enhance the estimate so made by the Assessing Officer. iii. With respect to the export commission he submitted that there is no error in the order of AO and stated that when the income of the recipient is not chargeable to tax in Ind…

Shree D.K. Associates, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 32, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5659/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 263

…I.T.A. No.5659/Mum/2016 1 Assessment year:2011-12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.5659/Mum/2016 Assessment year:2011-12 Shree D. K. Associates, Vs. Principal C.I.T.-32, Unit No. 1 & 2, Gala Mansion, Mumbai. Jambali Gully, Borivli (W), Mumbai. PAN:ABKFS 6335 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, A. R. Respondent by Shri E. Sankaran, CIT, D.R. Date of hearing 22/12/2016 Date of pronouncement 16/01/2017 O R D E R PER P. K. BANSAL: This appeal is filed by the asse…

Sh. Jatinder Singh, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2184/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT/DR

Section 143(3)Section 194C(6)Section 263

…, this issue also goes against the assessee. 8. By means of ground No. 1, the assessee has also challenged the impugned order u/s. 263 of the Act, being legally invalid. In support, he has relied on the following decisions : (i). CIT vs. Gabreil India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (ii). CIT vs. Arvind Jeweller, 259 ITR 502 (Guj) (iii). CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167(Del.) (iv). CIT vs. Mc Dermott International Inc., 302 ITR 268 (Uttarakhand) (v). CIT vs. DLF Ltd. 350 ITR 555 (Del.) 9. It was submitted that only because the Revising authority disagrees with the conclusions reached by primary authority in the…

Bhagirath Chandulal Arya, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 18, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 931/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.931/M/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) फनाभ/ Shri Bhagirath Chandulal Arya, Principal Commissioner of 8th Floor, Express Towers, Income Tax-18, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai. Mumbai – 400021. स्थामी रेखा सं./ PAN : AADPA1498F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent by : Shri N.P. Singh, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 06.01.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date o…

Sabmiller India Ltd ( Formelrly Skol Breweries Ltd), Mumbai vs. CIT 8, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 4170/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajan Vora/ Heman Chandra and Ankit ShrimaliFor Respondent: S/Shri Anand Mohan

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं सी एवं सी सी. एन सी एन एन. "साद एन "साद "साद,"याियक "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/4170/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" SABMiller India Limited(formerly SKOL CIT-8 Breweries Ltd.) Mumbai. Unit No.301-302,Third Floor,Dynasty Vs. Business P…

Vikas Oil Mill, Jaipur vs. CIT, Alwar

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

ITA 514/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…cy of enquiry and lack of enquiry. Powers u/s 263 cannot be exercised by CIT for inadequacy of enquiry for which reliance is placed in case of Cit vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Del.), Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC), Gabril India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) and other decisions as mentioned at page 7 to 9 of the CIT order. In view of the above, the order passed by the CIT u/s 263 be quashed. 4.5 In the context of Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2015 and the decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench in case of Anuj Jayendra Shah Vs. PCIT 67 taxmann.com 38, the Ld. AR f…

Alpex Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3319/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negialpex Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai 400 013 Pan:Aaacn 7738H ...... Appellant Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -6, Room No.501, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400 020 .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ronak D. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…ment order is not justified having regard to the pre-requisites contained in section 263(1) of the Act. In this context, reliance has been placed on the following decisions:- 1. Malbar Industries Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. CIT v.. Gabriel India Ltd. - 203 ITR 108(Bom) 3. CIT v. D.G. Gopala Gowda 354 ITR 501(KAR) 4. CIT v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh, 215 ITR 81(Guj) 5. CIT v. G.R. Thangamaligai [2003] 259 ITR 129 (Mad.) 4. On the other hand, on this aspect, Ld.CIT-DR appearing for the Revenue has merely relied upon the order of the PCIT in support of the case of the Revenue. 5. In the context of the prelimi…

People Ineractive (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3717/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 10ASection 147Section 263

…contended that the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. It was also pleaded that one of the possible view was taken by the Assessing Officer. He placed reliance upon the decision in CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.), CIT vs Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT vs Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282)(SC), General Electrical International Inc. vs ACIT 287 ITR (80) 43(Bom.). The ld. counsel also claimed that relief u/s 10A of the Act is of the nature of exemption, although termed as deduction, therefore, such income is neither subject to charge o…

People Ineractive (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3558/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 10ASection 147Section 263

Rajhans Metals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT -9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2716/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Krishna Murthy, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3

…oceedings the AO had raised the issue relating to downfall in GP as compared to earlier years and had taken the same into consideration while passing order u/s 143(3). Reliance was placed by him on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Gabrial India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) Thus, it was 4 submitted that the CIT failed to appreciate the above submission of the assessee in proper perspective . 5. The ld. DR supports the order of the CIT. He relies on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. (2012) 17 taxmann.com 203 (Kar.) and the order of the ITAT Mumbai Bench n the case of Pancard Clubs…

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 6, New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4000/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Mr. Satish Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Jayant Diddi, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 263Section 5

…ction 263 is valid only where the order of assessing officer is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue’s. He also referred to and relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., reported in 203 ITR 108, wherein Hon’ble Court held that, CIT cannot revise order merely because he disagrees with the conclusion arrived at by AO. 12. On the contrary, Ld. DR contended that the assessee being a resident in India, his income from whatever source is liable to be taxed India. He submitted that as per subsection (3) and section 90, any term that has been…

M/S Reliance Chemotex Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 715/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…views are possible and the AO has taken one view that alone will not be sufficient for the CIT to invoke powers u/s 263 of the Act. Attention of the CIT was also brought to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) wherein it was held that by exercising of powers u/s 263 of the Act the CIT cannot direct making of a rowing and fishing enquiry. 8. The CIT however did not consider any of the submissions and set aside the order of AO on this issue and directed the AO to consider the issue afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The…

Chandan M Parmar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4601/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Subhlachan Ram & Ms

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 2(14)Section 253Section 263Section 43(5)Section 68

…n by the decision in case of ACIT Vs Kerala Transport Co.[1994] 51 ITD 405 (Coch) and CIT Vs Balchand Gandhi [1982] Taxman59( Bom). Hence, the order is not prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 7. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) held: “ That the order of AO cannot be held to be erroneous on the mere ground that it should have been written more elaborately. It is further held that if enquiries made, but Commissioner hold that enquiry was insufficient or was not on proper lines, assessment was made in hurry, that re-examination would produce better results, that assessme…

Mr. Mohit Gupta, Faridabad vs. CIT, Faridabad

Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2460/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R L Meena, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…r under Section 263 of the Act. " 3.1 Ld. A.R. further submitted that Ld A.O. took a view on the basis of revised return and made additions thereon. He further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of CITVs Gabriel India Ltd. reported in 203 ITR 108 wherein Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that in a case, where ITO has made inquiries in regard to the nature of his income by the assessee and the assessee has given detailed explanation in that regard by way of written submissions, which were placed on record, then the decision of ITO cannot be held 10 I.T.A.No.2460./Del/2015 to be erroneou…

Prathama Bank, Moradabad vs. CIT, Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2316/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 2316/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Prathma Bank, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ram Ganga Vihar, Phase-Ii, Moradabad-244001 Moradabad-244001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaajp0988Q Assessee By : Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Paramita Tripathy, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.02.2013 Of Ld. Cit, Moradabad.

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…d. CIT cannot direct the AO to re-examine the claim of the assessee. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2010) 332 ITR 167 (Del) " CIT Vs New Delhi Television Ltd. (2013) TIOL 776 HC Del " CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) " CIT Vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) " CIT Vs International Travel House Ltd. 344 ITR 554 (Del) " CIT Vs Ashish Rajpal 320 ITR 674 (Del) " A2Z Maintenance & Engineering Services Ltd. Vs CIT (2015) TIOL-1894-ITAT-DEL " Sardhana Papers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (2015) TIOL-2016 (ITAT Del) " ITO Vs DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del) "…

M/S Bhadra Education Trust, Davangere vs. CIT, Davangere

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 607/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Shreehari Kulsa, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar, CIT - III

Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA.607/Bang/2014 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'C', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.607/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/s. Bhadra Education Trust, No.4120/1m 10th cross, Siddaveerappa Layout, Davangere .. Assessee PAN : AABTB4465H v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Davangere .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. Shreehari Kulsa, CA Revenue by : Shri. Sanjay Kumar, CIT - III Heard on : 27.09.2016 Pronounced on : 23.11.2016 O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This is an appeal filed by…

Sri. B.Y. Raghavendra vs. C.I.T

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 669/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ration tax audit report and the certificate computing eligible relief as held by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT v. Design and Automation Engineers [2010] 323 ITR 632 (Bom) following inter alia the decision in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom). 10. For these and such other grounds that may urged at the time of hearing , the order of the Commissioner of Income tax Davangere passed u/s 263 of the IT Act 1961 for the assessment year 2009-10 may be cancelled. 11. For these and such other grounds that may urged at the time of hearing, the order of the Commissioner of Income tax Davang…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6837/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…mmissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an order which is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law. 10.11. The Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Gabrial India Ltd., (1993) 203 ITR 108 has held that “the decision of the Income Tax Officer could not be held to be erroneous simply because in his order, he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard”. Considering the facts in totality in the light of the judicial decisions discussed hereinabove, in our understanding of law, the assessment order is neither erroneous nor pre…