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.

A Menarini India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 877/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

…ies Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No.972/Mds/2014 (iii) CIT vs. Sohana Wollen Mills (2008) 296 ITR 238 (P&H) (iv) J. Thomas & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCIT (OSD) ITA No.570/Kol/2012 (v) Vinay Partap Thacker Vs. CIT (ITA No. 2939/Mum/2011. (vi) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom). It is therefore prayed that the impugned order u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act dated 29/02/2024 may please be cancelled. 8. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-1 has erred in law and on facts of the case in passing the impugned order u/s. 263 whereby the Assessment Order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) r.w.s. 1448 was set aside…

Pashupati Capital Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai - 4, Mumbai

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

ITA 2985/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2985/MUM/2025(A.Y: 2020-21) M/s. Pashupati Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. PCIT, Mumbai-4, 806, DLH Park NR. MTNL Tele, SV Road, Goregaon West, Maharashtra- 400 104 Vs. R. No. 629, 6th floor,Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 PAN: AACCP0795J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Ms. Vinita Shah, Ld. AR Department Represented by : Shri R. A. Dhyani, Ld. DR Date of conclusion of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 ORDER PER…

Veerendra Basavaraj Koujalagi, Belagavi vs. PCIT Hubballi, Hubballi

ITA 103/PAN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 103/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Veerendra Basavaraj Koujalagi C/O. Shri Laxmi Complex, Sadashiv Nagar, Belgavi-590001 Pan : Agrpk3086D . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hubali. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Shivanand Halbhavi [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/07/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Assessee’S Captioned Appeal Impugns Din & Order 1063626985(1) Dt. 29/03/2024 Passed By Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hubali [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which Sought To Revise Order Of Assessment Dt. 26/04/2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr Shivanand Halbhavi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]

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

…. PCIT in holding the order of assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue is perfectly lawful & tenable by negative application of decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd’ reported at 203 ITR 108, which indeed relied by the appellant, wherein the Hon’ble lordship’s at para 14 have held as; ‘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…

M/S.Mahogany Logistics Services Pvt. Ltd., Madurai vs. PCIT, Madurai-1

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

ITA 1631/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1631/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mahogany Logistics Services Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax-1, 10, Jawahar Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. Madurai 625 002. [Pan:Aafcd8781R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Madurai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company [Earlier Known As M/S. Drsr Logistics Services Private Limited] Filed Its Return Of Income For The Ay 2018-19 Claiming Loss Of ₹.31,28,98,436/- Under 2

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36Section 37Section 40

…. He refers to many case law, which were relied on before the ld. PCIT in the case of Dawjee Dadabhoy and Co. V. S.P. Jain 31 ITR 872 (Cal HC), Venkata Krishna Rice Co. V. CIT 163 ITR 129 (Mad HC), Mukur Corporation 111 ITR 312 (Guj HC) and Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 5 I.T.A. No.1631/Chny/24 (Bom HC). He argued that every loss of Revenue as a consequence of order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 6. The ld. AR submits that the observations of the ld. PCIT that accrued interest of non convertible debentures (NCD in short) is a provision and any provision c…

B. Arunkumar Capital & Credit Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 2034/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

…onfined to loss of tax. The High Court of Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain ((1957) 31 ITR 872 (Cal)], the High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. T. Narayana Pai ((1975) 98 ITR 422 (Kant)], the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom)] and the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Minalben S. Parikh [(1995) 215 ITR 81 (Guj)) treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [(1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad)] interpreting "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue". The High Court held: "In this context, (it…

Sanjiv Soshil Mehta, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(2), Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2096/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Income-tax – 1, Mumbai

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 90

…section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous ". 9. Further, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. reported in [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), while dealing with identical issue has held as under:- 13. 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 Rev…

ITO, Ward-2(1), Thane vs. Chalk Farm Ventures Private Limited, Bhayender East

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

ITA 3492/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: The Hon'Ble High Court. 2. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case, Since The Revenue Is In Appeal Before The Hon'Ble High Court On The Itat'S Decision, Which Is Pending As On Date, This Appeal Is Being Filed To Keep The Issue Alive. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Ground/Grounds, Which May Be Necessary.”

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO Ward-2(1) Vs. Chalk Farm Ventures Thane Private Limited Indralok, Near RBK Global School Bhayander East-401105 Thane PAN/GIR No.AAGCC0332A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Virabhadra S Mahajan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 22/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against order dated 12/03/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.14…

Marathwada Nagari Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit, Kalyan vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 1(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3346/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankarmarathwada Nagari Sahakari V/S. Assessing Officer, Ward – Path Sanstha Maryadit, बनाम 1(1), Mohan Plaza, Wayle Shop No. 06, 1St Floor, Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan Dhamnikar Plaza, Bhiwandi, – 421301, Maharashtra Thane – 421302, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9150E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Sushant Alme, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT- DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…vs. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC),  Quepem Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. vs. ACIT [2015] 377 ITR 272 (Bom. HC).  PCIT vs. Goa PWD Staff Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. [2016] 242 Taxman 0422 (Bom. HC.)  CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom.)  CIT vs. Jafari Momin Vikash Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. [2014] 362 ITR 331 (Guj. HC.  ACIT vs. Metrocity Criminal Courts employees Mutually Aided co- op. Credit Society Ltd. [2015] 39 ITR (Trib.) Hyderabad.  In Lady Ratan Tower Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.  ACIT vs. People's Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. [2019] 180 DTR (Ahd) (SB…

Veej Company Sevakanchi Sahakari Path Sanstha Ltd., Kalyan vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3341/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankarveej Company Sevakanchi V/S. Assessing Officer, Ward – Sahakari Path Sanstha बनाम 3(1), Rani Mansion, 2Nd Ltd.,Shramik Sahakar, Usha Floor, Kalyan Murbad Road, Sankul Valiper Road, Oak Thane - 421 301, Baug, Thane - 421301, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam2266M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Sushant Alme,ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT - DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

Bhagwati Steel Processors, Chandigarh vs. PCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 435/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

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

…dependent confirmation or inquiry. 6.2 The Revenue relied on Explanation 2(a) to Section 263 and judicial precedents including DG Housing Projects Ltd. [(2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del.)], Gee Vee Enterprises [(1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del.)], and Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.)]. 7. We have heard the rival contention and perused the material available on the record and also the legal position governing the scope of Section 263. On perusal of the assessment records, we find that the Assessing Officer had issued multiple notices under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, specifically calling for comprehensive deta…

Asian Institute of Gastroenterology Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 are allowed

ITA 610/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, S. VenugopalFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.Nos.609 & 610/Hyd./2025 Assessment Years 2020-2021 & 2021-2022 Asian Institute of The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Gastroenterology Private vs. Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. PIN – 500 082 PAN AABCA7322F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : CA, S. Venugopal For Revenue : Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 08.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11.07.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G. : The above two appeals are filed by the Assessee against the orders both dated 13.0…

Muhammad Zameer Qureshi, Bareilly vs. Pr. CIT, Bareilly

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 344/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Muhammad Zameer Qureshi V. The Pcit 180, Azam Nagar Bareilly Bareilly Tan/Pan:Aacpz6783H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 139(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 69

…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:- "... From a reading 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 Income-tax Officer…

Jsw Steel Coated Products Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai - 5, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3113/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampura, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous ". I.T.A. No. 3113/Mum/2025 5 10. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. reported in [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), while dealing with identical issue has held as under:- 13. 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 Rev…

Ct. Ramanathan (HUF), Pudukkottai vs. PCIT 1, Madurai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 761/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.761/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 C.T.Ramanathan(Huf), Income Tax Officer, No.7/45, Ct.Rm.S.House, M.St.S. Street Ward-1, Kulipirai, Pudukottai Dist, Pudukottai. Tamil Nadu-622 402. [Pan: Aaahc0701L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.V.Subbarayan, Dcit(Retd.) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.M.K.Biju, Cir Dr By Virtual. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr.V.Subbarayan, DCIT(Retd.)For Respondent: Mr.M.K.Biju, CIR DR by virtual

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3

…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) ** 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 fal…

P P Kharpatil Constructions Pvt Ltd, Uran vs. Circle - Panvel, Panvel

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1294/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1294/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 P P Kharpatil Construction Pvt. V The Principal Ltd., S. Commissioner Of Income 656, At Post Chimer Taluka, Tax, Thane-1. Uran District, Raigad – 410206. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaccp4003B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mrs. Naina Chaurasia & Shri Sameer Gavli – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Thane-1 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 27.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3)R.W.S. 144Bof The Income Tax Act, Dated 22.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

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

…“Exhibit 23”.” 4.5 The ld.Pr.CIT has not doubted or rebutted the said facts. Therefore, we are of the opinion that assessee had explained the difference. ITA No.1294/PUN/2025 [A] 5. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Limited 203 ITR 108 (BOM) had held as under : “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…

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cricle -Ltu 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2956/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous ". 14. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. reported in [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), while dealing with identical issue has held as under:- 13. 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 Rev…

Haresh Kumar Lalwani, Vizianagaram vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Vishakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.264/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) Haresh Kumar Lalwani V. Pr.Cit -1 22-1-22, Ambati Satram Junction Aayakar Bhavan, Daba Gardens Vizianagaram – 535002 Visakhapatnam – 530020 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaqpt9248P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(x)Section 69A

…ions already made and submitted that once Ld. AO has made a detailed enquiry and addition was made and again Ld.Pr.CIT cannot invoke 263 proceedings on the ground that lack of proper enquiry. He relied on the decision of the CIT v. Gabrial India Ltd., [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (BOM)]. He also pointed out from the paper book Page No. 81, notice issued by the Assessing Officer calling all the details, the same is reproduced below: - Page No. 4 I.T.A. No.264/VIZ/2025 Haresh Kumar Lalwani “1. Computation of total income for the period. 2. A brief note regarding the nature of business activities carried out by you during…

Livlong Insurance Brokers Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT -4, Mumbai

ITA 2864/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Mehta,ARFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, (Sr. DR)

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 80G

…hus, in our considered view following Apex Court ruling the Revision order passed by Ld. PCIT on the above issue is 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) 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 Commi…

Alliance Nirmaan Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 263

…aced on it by the Ld. Counsel for assessee. Moreover, a list of following case laws relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the assessee was also filed from the assessee's side: 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay) 3. CIT vs. Land Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd. [2013] 357 ITR 763 (Mad) 4. CIT vs. MAX India Limited [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) 5. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del) 6. Income Tax Officer vs. Dg. Housing Projects Ltd., I.T.A. No.179/2011-HC of Delhi -date of order 01/03/2012 343 ITR 329 (Del) 7. CIT vs. Vikas Polymers [20…

Satishbhai Mohanbhai Zalavadia, Na vs. Ari, Vs.the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 122/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. A.L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.122/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical He Aring) Satishbhai Mohanbhai Zalavadia, The Pr. Cit – 1, Vs. 2622, Sarvoday Park, Khundh Rajkot Khundh, Chikhli, Navsari - 396521 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acnpp0527F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ar Respondent By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : Heard On 23/07/2024 & Refix For Clarification On 24.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. A.L. SAINI, AM & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.122/RJT/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical He aring) Satishbhai Mohanbhai Zalavadia, The Pr. CIT – 1, Vs. 2622, Sarvoday Park, Khundh Rajkot Khundh, Chikhli, Navsari - 396521 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACNPP0527F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Rajendra Singhal, AR Respondent by : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : Heard on 23/07/2024 & Refix for clarification on 24.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E…