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 366,005 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.

M/S Himadri Industries Ltd, Kolkata vs. C.I.T Central - III, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 889/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri N. V. Vasudevan, JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A No.889/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Himadri Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, (PAN:AAACH6475M) Central-III, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 19.05.2016 Date of pronouncement: 01.06.2016 For the Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, AR For the Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DR ORDER Per Shri M. Balaganesh, AM: This appeal by assessee is arising out of revision order of CIT, Central-III, Kolkata vide M. No. CIT/C-III/Kol/263 order/12-13/3518-14 dated…

M/S. Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Hisar vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2560/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 168, Delhi Rod, Sector 27-28, Hisar. Hisar. (Pan: Aaics9088H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri Ashish Kumar, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Pankaj Vidharthi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Vidharthi, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

…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 11 I.T.A. 2560/D/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 records of any proceedings under this Act, he cons…

People Infocom Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. C.I.T. Cir.7, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 210/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 People Infocom Private Ltd. Cit-7, C/O- Samria & Co. Room No.611, बनाम/ Chartered Accountants, 6Th Floor, Vs. 2E, Court Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, 35, New Marine Lines, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aadcp5658H (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 263Section 51

…said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 10 3.3. So far as, the scope of revision u/s 263 of the Act is concerned, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has enlightened us in its order dated 15/04/1993 in CIT vs Gabrial India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (pages 9 to 15 of the paper book), wherein discussion was made at length and finally decided in favour of the assessee. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereunder:- “7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the orders of the Income-tax Officer, the Commissioner and the Tribunal. On perusal of the adm…

Tirupati Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 3316/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Tirupati Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Cit, Plot No. D, District Centre, Central-Ii, Paschim Vihar, E-2, Jhandewalan Ext. New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aadct5825H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ved Jain & P. Srivastava, Ca Department By: Ms. Archena S. Awasthi, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 25 .02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 :05.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned Validity Of Revisional Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On Several Grounds.

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain & P. Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Archena S. Awasthi, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 263

…mmissioner has initiated the revision proceedings on the 11 recommendations of the Assessing Officer and without any independent findings in this regard. The facts of the present case are almost similar to the facts in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. – 203 ITR 108 (Bombay) followed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (supra) wherein the income-tax officer had made inquiry in regard to the nature of expenditure incurred by the assessee. The assessee had given detailed explanation in that regard by a letter in writing. All these were part of the record o…

Goldman Sachs India Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11

ITA 2227/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri J.D.MistryFor Respondent: Shri Subachan Ram

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…. In support of the above proposition, the Ld. Sr. Counsel placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 83(SC) (ii) Max India Ltd. vs. CIT (2008) 295 ITR 282(SC) (iii) Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 4.1.3 Reliance was also placed on the following judicial pronouncements in support of the proposition that the CIT cannot substitute his views on a particular issue in relation to which a view has already been taken by the Assessing Officer:- (i) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2010) 332 ITR 167 (Del) (ii)CIT vs. Nirma Chemical Works (P) Ltd. (2…

M/S Southern Ferro Steels Ltd., Dharwad vs. ITO, Hubli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 429/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Raom/S.Southern Ferro Steels Ltd. No.172, Kiadb, Belur Industrial Estate, Belur, Dharwad. … Appellant Pan:Aalcs 7704 H Vs.

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devadas, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43(1)

…tention, he has relied upon the following decisions: i. CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co.Ltd. (341 ITR 180)(Del); ii. CIT vs. Giridhar Lal (258 ITR 331) (Raj); iii. CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502)(Gau.); and iv. CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108(Bom.) Page 5 of 8 5. On the other hand, learned DR submitted that the AO did not apply his mind on the issue of valuation of fixed assets which were already used by the seller in the light of Explanation 3 to sec.43(1). There is no dispute that the fixed asset in questions were used by the seller for business purpose and the value has been enhan…

Krunal Pravinchandra Gala, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1 Thane, Pune

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1312/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 263Section 80I

…further supports the case of the assessee. Identically, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (320 ITR 674) vide order dt.14/5/2009, decided in favour of the assessee . The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) held that there must be material before the Commissioner to satisfy himself that two requisite provided u/s. 263 are present, otherwise power cannot be exercised at the whims and caprice of the Commissioner. We have also seen the factual finding recorded in the assessment order (reproduced hereinabove) before framing the assessment u/s. 143(…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6786/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)

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

…2010-11 & 2011-12) KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED VS. ACIT order passed u/s. 143(3) is erroneous and rejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The assessee strongly relies on the Born bay High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Gabrial [India] Ltd. 203 ITR 108. In this case, it was held that if the Assessing Officer has raised queries and the assessee has reiled written submissions / explanation, merely because there is no discussion in the Assessing Officer's order on the relevant issue, it cannot be said that such order becomes erroneous. Similar view has been taken by the Rajasthan High Court in the…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6785/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)

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

M/S Bla Coke Private Limited, Kolkata vs. CIT, --IV, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 597/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Agarwal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Sachidananda Srivastava, CIT DR

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

…e was a possible view on the issue and just because the CIT does not agree with the aforesaid view that will not be a ground for invoking jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act. In this regard the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Gabriel India Limited 203 ITR 108. 6. The CIT however had not deal with any of the contentions put forth by the assessee and he set aside the order of AO and directed the AO to examine the issue afresh. The following relevant observations of the CIT in this regard :- “ 3. I have examined facts of the case and also submission the representative the issue requires to be examined af…

The Calcutta Stock Excange Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 268/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: : Shri S.S. Vishwanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri D.S. Damle, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Srivastava, CIT, ld.DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…In view of this discussion an entirety of the case, we uphold the grievance of the assessee and quash the impugned revision order. 4.9. We place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Gabriel India reported in (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) wherein it was held that the Commissioner cannot initiate proceedings with a view to starting fishing and roving enquiries in matters or orders which are already concluded. There must be material on record to show that tax which was lawfully exigible has not been imposed if the claim was allowed by the ITO. On being satisfied with the expla…

Udaysingh P Bobade (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result , the appeal in ITA No

ITA 7491/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7490/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Sujaysingh P. Bobade (Huf) बनाम/ I.T.O. 19(1)(2), A-101, Amrit Chs Ltd. Piramal Chambers, V. 15 Carter Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaphs9015L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

…upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd v. CIT in (2000) 243 ITR 83(SC) , CIT v. Max India Limited (2008) 295 ITR 282(SC) and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gabriel India Limited (1993)203 ITR 108(Bom. HC) and submitted that the AO in the instant case has applied his mind and adopted one of the possible and plausible view which is in-fact a correct view before passing the assessment orders and the CIT cannot substitute his view by invoking provisions of Section 263 of the Act and rather view adopted by the CIT is erroneous view. The assess…

Sujaysingh P Bobade (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result , the appeal in ITA No

ITA 7490/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

Haldia Riverside Estates Limited, Kolkata vs. C.I.T Kolkata - III, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1256/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasusdevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2008-09 Haldia Riverside Estates V/s. CIT-III, P-7, Ltd. 1, Auckland Place, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 017 Aayakar Bhawan, [PAN No.AAACH 7645 B] Kolkata 700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /By Appellant Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 21-12-2015 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 05-02-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER Waseem Ahmed, Accou…

Estrela Batteries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 2, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2122/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…i Engineering Works Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 366 (Del.), v. R.A. Himmatsinghka & Company vs CIT (2012) 340 ITR 253 (Pat.) vi. CIT vs Rajeev Agnihotri (2011) 332 ITR 608 (P & H), vii. CIT vs DLF Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 555 (Del.), viii. CIT vs Gabreal India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108, 114 (Bom.), ix. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. vs CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), x. Nabha Investments Pvt. ltd. vs UOI (2000) 246 ITR 41 (Del.), xi. Bismillah Trading Company Ltd. vs IO (2001) 248 ITR 292, 308 (Kerala), 5 M/s Estrela Batteries Ltd xii. Paul Mathews & Sons vs CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101, 113 (Kerala), xiii. CIT vs Seshasayee Paper & B…

Ritesh Kumar Boyed, Kolkata vs. C.I.T Kolkata - Xiv, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2299/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sa ndeep Chaube, CIT(DR)

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…nvoked only when two conditions viz., the order in question being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue are established. The Assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) for the above proposition. The Assessee also pointed out that since unrecorded sales are made throughout the year, unrecorded purchases were also made throughout the year. The profit margin on sale and the realization from sale would be sufficient source of funds out of which the Assessee would have made purchases and hence no separate add…

Elder It Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 4, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2461/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri A.V.SondeFor Respondent: Manjunatha R.Swamy

Section 143(3)Section 263

…order. Once the CIT in his order accepted the fact regarding enquiry having made by the AO and assessee has furnished its explanation, then it cannot be said that it is a case of “lack of enquiry”. Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabrial India Ltd., 203 ITR 108, held that where the AO has allowed certain expenditure as revenue expenditure after making enquiries, the Commissioner initiating proceedings u/s.263, setting aside assessment and directing the AO to re-examine the matter as to whether the expenditure was revenue or capital, is illegal. Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. D.Valliammal,…

A.V. Industries, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3469/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. A.V. Industries, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 201, Bhagtani Krishna, Tax -24(3), “A” Wing, Mumbai Vs. Dattaray Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaffa 1100L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K. Shivaram, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2015 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

…t find mention in the assessment order. (i) CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (I) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Mumbai-HC) (ii) CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (2010) 320 ITR 674 (Delhi-HC) (iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi-HC) (iv) CIT vs. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay-HC) (v) Grasim Ind. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bombay-HC) (vi) CIT vs. Malabar Industries (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay-HC) (vii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 109 Taxman 66 (SC) (viii) CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2002) 124 taxman 615 (Guj.-HC) (ix) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2010) 194 taxman 57 (Delhi – HC) (x) ITO vs. DG Housi…

Ambit Multitrade P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 1527/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

For Respondent: Shri E Sankaran

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

…आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, अिधकरण " ए” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“A”,BENCH सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं एवं एवं अिमत शु"ल,"याियक सद"य एवं Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Amit Shukla,Judicial Member आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.1527/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ambit Multitrade P. Ltd., ITO 4(1)(3) 401-A,Pearl Arcade,Opp. P K Vs Mumbai Jewellers, Daud Baug Lane, Off J P Road, Andheri (W),Mumbai-58 PAN: AAICA1031C (अपीलाथ…

Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 571/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…e case of D.G. Gopala Gowda (supra), it was incumbent on the part of CIT exercising power u/s. 263 of the Act to bring out the erroneous nature of the order of AO in light of the reply given by the assessee in the impugned order. In CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) it was held that from a reading of sub-section (1) Page 12 of 15 of Section 263 of the Act, it is clear that the power of suo motu revision can be exercised by the Commissioner only if, on examination of the records of any proceedings under this Act, he considers that any order passed therein by the Income-tax Officer is "erroneous in so…