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 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.

M/S Gvk Jaipur Expressway Private Limited, Telangana vs. PCIT 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 248/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

…above discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case we vacate the impugned revision order. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. It is further submitted that, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabrial India Ltd., reported in 203 ITR 108, has held that, “CIT cannot revise order merely because he disagrees with the conclusion arrived at by the ITO”. Further, in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., reported in 227 CTR 133, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court drew a distinction between “Lack of inquiry” and “inadequate enquiry" and held that, ‘in the case of inadequate enquiry, provision…

Kptcl Empls Co-Op Cr. Soc, Belagavi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 113/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2020-21 Kptcl Employee’S Credit Co-Operative Society, Ltd. 01, Opp. Jnmc College, Nehru Nagar, Belgavi-590010 Pan:Aagfk2092Q . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Ashok Mudnur [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…sustainable in law. The very view laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra) stands reiterated in catena of judicial decisions viz; ‘CIT Vs Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC), CIT v. Nahar Exports Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 494 (P&H), CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) Grasim Industries vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR, 92 (Bom). 9. Keeping in mind former settled legal position now reverting back to the present impugned order under challenge at the very outset we note that, it is an admitted fact that the appellant assessee is a co-operative society registered under the State Co-operative society. The appellant fo…

India Japan Lighting Private Limited, Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 4, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1427/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1427/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 V. M/S. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit-4, No.1, Tiruvallur High Road, Chennai. Puduchatram B.O., Thirumazhisai, Tiruvallur-600 124. [Pan: Aaaci 2673 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

…pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases M/s. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd. :: 12 :: 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) ** 23. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma [2010 SCC OnLine Del 838], wherein, it was held that once it is inferred from the record of assessment that AO has applied its mind, the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act would fa…

Shri Basaveshwar Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mudalagi vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 78/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.78/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21) Shri Basaveshwar Urban Vs. Pr.Cit, Co_Op Credit Society C.R.Building, Mudalagi, Navanagar, Belagavi-591312, Hubli-580025, Karnataka Karnataka. Pan .No.Aaaas6800M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Saidappa Gadadi.Ar Revenue By Shri.Captain Pradeep Arya.Cit.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 11.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 14.08.2025 Pronouncement Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Hubli Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assesse Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Revision Order Passed By The Pr.Cit Set Aside The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is A Cooperative Credit Society & Has Filed The Return Of Income For The A.Y 2020-21 On 04.01.2021 Disclosing A Total Income Of

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…he A.O. Whereas the A.O has applied his mind and verified the facts. The Ld. AR referred to the submissions, financial statements, judicial decisions and explanations filed before the A.O. We find the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd.(203 ITR 108) has observed as under: Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - Assessment year 1973-74 - Assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 99,326 described 'as plant relay out expenses' as revenue expenditure and ITO, after making enquiries in regard to nature of said expenditure and considering explanati…

The Dhanashree Multipurpose Co-Operative Society Limited, Belgaum vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 119/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2020-21 The Dhanashree Multipurpose Co-Operative Society, Ltd. 722/1, Angol Road, Vidya Nagar, Belgaum-590006 Pan:Aaaad0350R . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

…laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra) stands reiterated in catena of judicial decision rendered by various hon’ble courts viz; ‘CIT Vs Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC), CIT v. Nahar Exports Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 494 (P&H), CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) Grasim Industries vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR, 92 (Bom). ITAT-Panaji Page 7 of 16 The Dhanashree Multipurpose Co-operative Society, Ltd. Vs. PCIT ITA No.119/PAN/2025, AY: 2020-21 8. Keeping in mind former settled legal position now reverting back to the present impugned order under challenge at the very outset we note that, it is an admitted f…

Guru Kripa Associates, Bareilly vs. Pr. CIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 97/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ified in setting aside the order or the AO for examining afresh. Accordingly, the directions of the PCIT are quashed. 11. Judgment and order dated 15.04.1993 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., reported in (1993) 203 ITR 108. 14&15 "14. We may now examine the facts of the present case in the light of the powers of the Commissioner set out above. The ITO in this case had made enquiries in regard to the nature of the expenditure incurred by the assessee. The assessee had given detailed explanation in that regard by a letter in writing. All these are part of the record…

Procter and Gamble Health Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2326/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji & Shri Ajay BhandariFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 40Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)Section 68

…ive 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] 114 CTR 81/203 ITR 108/CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 71 Taxman 585/203 ITR 108 (Bom.), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner (page 113) ***" 23. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma [2010] 194 Тахтап 504/[2011] 335 ITR 83 (Delhi)/[2010] SCC OnLine Del 838, wherein, it was held that once it is inferred from…

Sukhraj Singh and Company, Moga vs. The PCIT-I, Ludhiana

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 553/CHANDI/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…21 ITR 92). The ratio of all these decisions is that where two views are possible and AO has preferred one view against another view, order could not be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 10. In the case of Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108), Hon’ble Bombay High Court observed that from a reading of sub-section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suo-motu revision can be exercised by revisionary authority 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 far…

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 958/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…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).” A similar view was taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma [2010 SCC OnLine Del 838], wherein, it was held that once it is inferred from the record of assessment that AO has applied his mind, the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act…

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 957/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…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).” A similar view was taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma [2010 SCC OnLine Del 838], wherein, it was held that once it is inferred from the record of assessment that AO has applied his mind, the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act…

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 956/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…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).” A similar view was taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma [2010 SCC OnLine Del 838], wherein, it was held that once it is inferred from the record of assessment that AO has applied his mind, the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act…

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT (Central), Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 953/CHNY/2025[953]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…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).” A similar view was taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma [2010 SCC OnLine Del 838], wherein, it was held that once it is inferred from the record of assessment that AO has applied his mind, the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act…

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT (Central), Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 952/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…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).” A similar view was taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma [2010 SCC OnLine Del 838], wherein, it was held that once it is inferred from the record of assessment that AO has applied his mind, the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act…

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT (Central), Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 951/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…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).” A similar view was taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma [2010 SCC OnLine Del 838], wherein, it was held that once it is inferred from the record of assessment that AO has applied his mind, the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act…

Cupid Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pricipal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 478/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Shubhash Shetty & Shri Vinayaka RaoFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, (CIT-DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 69C

…t ruling the Revision orders passed by Ld. PCIT are Page 8 ITA No. 478/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2021-22 Cupid Diamonds Private Limited not sustainable in law. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd.((203 ITR 108) (Bom)(HC) and American Spring and Processing Works P.Ltd(2023) 295 Taxman 438(Bom) and also B.T.Global Communications India Ltd (2024) 466 ITR 714(Del) wherein revisions orders were not sustained as the AO taken one of the plausible views different from that of the PCIT. 5. We have carefully examined the facts of the case. We find that as per th…

Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd., Raigarh vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal

ITA 336/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 336/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 80G

…these documents, facts & figures are on record. Nothing else was required to be looked into. After considering these, AO did not draw adverse inference. vi) Matter already looked into. Outside the scope of sec. 263. Reliance on: - - CIT vs Gabrial India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Born.). - Hill Queen Investment (P.) Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (2021) 62 CCH 70 (Kol. Trib.). - Colour Publications P. Ltd. vs Pr. CIT (2018) 196 TTJ 257 (Born.), para 17. - Magic Landcon LLP & Anr. Vs Pr. CIT (2020) 204 TTJ 785 (Del.). vii) Ld. Pr. CIT only looked at returned income, that too of this year. Total resources available in the hands of lende…

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-8(1), Chennai

ITA 3084/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. C. Naresh, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM I.T.A. No. 3083/Chny/2024 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) I.T.A. No. 3084/Chny/2024 (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Indian Overseas Bank, The PCIT, 763, Annasalai, Chennai, Room No. 301, Wanaparthy Block- Tamil Nadu-600002 Vs. III Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Road, PAN: AAACI1223J Nungambakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600034. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Mr. C. Naresh, C.A. : Mr. Shiva Srinavas, CIT Revenue / Respondent by Date of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 07.08.2025 O R D E R Per P…

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-8(1), Chennai

ITA 3083/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. C. Naresh, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM I.T.A. No. 3083/Chny/2024 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) I.T.A. No. 3084/Chny/2024 (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Indian Overseas Bank, The PCIT, 763, Annasalai, Chennai, Room No. 301, Wanaparthy Block- Tamil Nadu-600002 Vs. III Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Road, PAN: AAACI1223J Nungambakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600034. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Mr. C. Naresh, C.A. : Mr. Shiva Srinavas, CIT Revenue / Respondent by Date of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 07.08.2025 O R D E R Per P…

Coral India Finance & Housing Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Mumbai

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

ITA 2496/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri V K Ginde, ARFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT-DR)
Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)(a)

…ainable in law. Thus, in our considered view following Apex Court ruling the Revision orders passed by Ld. PCIT are not sustainable in law. Reference could also be made to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) (Bom) (HC) with regard to assumption of jurisdiction by the PCIT in the para below: "12. From the aforesaid definitions it is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the…

Kaushal Anil Shah, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1952/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Reepal G. Trashawala,ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,(CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 69C

…sioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of "lack of inquiry", that such a course of action would be open. The hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom), discussed the law on this aspect in length in the following manner: Page 9 ITA No. 1952/Mum/2025 Α.Υ. 2021-22 Kaushal Anil Shah "The consideration of the Commissioner as to whether an order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, must be based on materials on the record of the proceedings called for by…