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.

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 108)

Aamir Khan Production Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 2612/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

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

…020-21 Aamir Khan Production Private Limited 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 C…

Micromax Informatics Ltd, New Delhi vs. PCIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2524/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 263

…by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of "lack of inquiry" that such a course of action would be open. In Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner (page 113) ***" 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 17:06:54 once it is inferred from the record of assessment that AO has applied its mind, the proceedings under Section 263 of the A…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Te Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

ITA/53/2024HC Karnataka05 Jun 2025

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 260ASection 263Section 40

…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. xx xx xx xx xx 10. The phrase “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of…

Bharatkumar Ranchodbhai Soni, Na vs. Arivs.PCIT, Valsad

ITA 505/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

…nadequate by the Id. PCIT, the same cannot make the order of AO erroneous. The assessee had also relied on the decisions in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Del), CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and a plethora of decisions where the Hon'ble Courts have allowed relief to the assessee on similar facts. Accordingly, it was requested not to invoke provisions of section 263 of the Act. 4. The Id. PCIT considered the submission of the assessee and held that the order passed by the AO on 30.12.2019 was without making any independent inqui…

Ajay Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 733/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

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

…fined 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. 9. Mr Abraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [(1987) 24 Ajay Kumar, Ghaziabad 163 ITR 129 (Mad)] interpreting…

Dlf Home Developers Limited, New Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2585/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Dlf Home Developers Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Sansad Delhi-1, Marg, New Delhi-110001. New Delhi Pan-Aaccd0037H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Singhvi, Ca & Shri Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Shri Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ove) for making verification and examination which is not permissible in the eyes of law. He placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. vs CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay HC) wherein it is held that unless twin conditions are satisfied, CIT(A) cannot assure jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. 52. The Ld.AR for the assessee further submits that once the AO has carried out necessary inquiries and reached to a conclusion, the jurisdiction cannot be exercised u/s 263 of the Act and for which he placed reliance on…

Sita Rama Raju Sagi, Bhimavaram vs. ITO Ward 1 Bhimavaram, Bhimavaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.154/Viz/2025 (धनिाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21) Sita Rama Raju Sagi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhimavaram – 534202. Ward-1, Pan: Egapa3925J Bhimavaram. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mrs. Hema Latha K, Ca प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : 20/05/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Mrs. Hema Latha K, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

…Act when there is a possibility of the second view. On this issue, she relied on various case laws as follows: (1) AP High Court in Deccan Jewellers Pvt Ltd vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Visakhapatnam ITTA No. 8, 9 & 14 of 2021. (2) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) (3) GVR Associates vs. ITO in ITA No. 221/Viz/2015 (4) M/s. Nue-Tech Engineers vs. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam in ITO No. 570/Viz/2013 (5) Supreme Court [2000] 109 taxman 66 (SC) (6) Andhra Pradesh High Court in Spectra Shares & Scrips (P) Ltd vs. CIT (AP) 354 ITR 35 (7) Visakhapatnam Tribunal in ITA No. 81/Vizag/2016 (8) Delhi Tribunal [2019] t…

Radial International Mining Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT (Central), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1651/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 22Section 263

…fined 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. 9. Mr Abraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [(1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad)] interpreting “prejudicial to the interes…

Vijaya Lakshmi Ravula, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 218/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Satyasai Rath, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(47)Section 263Section 53A

…s law on the point. He has then relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd (2011) 332 ITE 167 (Del.) as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.). The learned AR has also referred to the order of the learned CIT (A) dated 13/12/2023 in case of Smt. Nalini Kotagiri, the co-owner of the land, in question, wherein the Assessing Officer made an addition of Long-Term Capital Gain which was deleted by the learned CIT (A). Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the impugned order passed b…

Swarajyam Dontireddy, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 217/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Satyasai Rath, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(47)Section 263Section 53A

…s law on the point. He has then relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd (2011) 332 ITE 167 (Del.) as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.). The learned AR has also referred to the order of the learned CIT (A) dated 13/12/2023 in case of Smt. Nalini Kotagiri, the co-owner of the land, in question, wherein the Assessing Officer made an addition of Long-Term Capital Gain which was deleted by the learned CIT (A). Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the impugned order passed b…

Veerareddy Gogula, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 216/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Satyasai Rath, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(47)Section 263Section 53A

…s law on the point. He has then relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd (2011) 332 ITE 167 (Del.) as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.). The learned AR has also referred to the order of the learned CIT (A) dated 13/12/2023 in case of Smt. Nalini Kotagiri, the co-owner of the land, in question, wherein the Assessing Officer made an addition of Long-Term Capital Gain which was deleted by the learned CIT (A). Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the impugned order passed b…

Konda Srinivasa Reddy, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 209/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Satyasai Rath, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(47)Section 263Section 53A

…s law on the point. He has then relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd (2011) 332 ITE 167 (Del.) as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.). The learned AR has also referred to the order of the learned CIT (A) dated 13/12/2023 in case of Smt. Nalini Kotagiri, the co-owner of the land, in question, wherein the Assessing Officer made an addition of Long-Term Capital Gain which was deleted by the learned CIT (A). Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the impugned order passed b…

Assotech Moonshine Urban Developers P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2524/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 263

…by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of "lack of inquiry" that such a course of action would be open. In Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner (page 113) ***" 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 17:06:54 once it is inferred from the record of assessment that AO has applied its mind, the proceedings under Section 263 of the A…

Apurva Natvar Parikh & Co. Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 2646/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…only if it is shown that the assessment order is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The question as to when an order can be termed as “erroneous” was explained by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd (203 ITR 108) as under:- "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 the law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order should have been…

Pramukh Aranya Developers, Junagadh vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 372/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.372 /Rjt/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2018-19) M/S. Pramukh Aranya Developers Office No. 5, First Floor, Cit Centre, Opp. New Collector Officer, B/H. Sardar Baug, Junagadh - 362001 The Pr. Cit-1, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaofp3393F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Appellant By राजस्व की प्रत्यर्थी ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: : 04/02/2025 : 28/04/2025 आदेश / Order By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Dated 30.03.2024, Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax (In Short “Ld Pcit"), Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'), For The Assessment Year2018-19.Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: M/S. Pramukh Aranya Developers V. Pcit

For Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. AR

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23(5)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोट न्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOMETAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.372 /RJT/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2018-19) M/s. Pramukh Aranya Developers Office No. 5, First Floor, Cit Centre, Opp. New Collector Officer, B/h. Sardar Baug, Junagadh - 362001 The Pr. CIT-1, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAOFP3393F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Appellant by राजस्व की प्रत्…

P P Corporation, Rajkot vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 245/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA NO. 245/RJT/2024 P.P. CORPORATION RAJKOT-360005 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LALSAINI, AM. & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM आयकर अपीलसं./ITA No.245/RJT/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) P.P. CORPORATION, Pradhyuman Royal Heights, Opp. Neel DA Dhaba, Kalawad Road, Rajkot 360005 Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot 360001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAPFP9190H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Respondent by Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : Shri R.B. Shah Ld. AR : Shri Sanjay…

Mmtc Ltd vs. DCIT Circle 5(1)

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2006[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Pcit, Plot No. 23, 5Th Floor, Aggarwal Delhi-1, Delhi Corporate Tower Govind Lal Sikka Marg, Rajendra Place, West Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, India, 110008 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacc0642F

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Bharati, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37

…umar Sharma reported in 335 ITR 83 (Del) c. CIT Vs. Amalgamations Ltd reported in 238 ITR 963 (Mad) d. Hari Iron Trading Company Vs. CIT reported in 263 ITR 437 (P&H) e. CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd reported in 294 ITR 310 (Del) f. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 8. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we dismiss the preliminary argument of the ld DR that the ld AO had not indicated his mind in the assessment order by stating as to whether any enquiry was made on the issues that are sought to be revised by the ld PCIT u/s 263 of the Act. 9. Now let us examine whether in respect of each of…

Pushp Raj Bohra, Jalore vs. Pr. CIT – 1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 374/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Ble

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

…following case laws:- i. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) ii. CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi (2008) 296 ITR 292 (Raj) iii. CIT(Addl.) vs. UP. State Agro Industrial Corporation [1981] 121 ITR 97 (All) iv. CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) v. CIT vs. Parmanad, D. B. Income Tax Appeal No. 137/2014 vi. CIT vs. M/s. Jain Construction, D. B. Income Tax Appeal No. 60/2012 6. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative supported the impugned order of learned CIT. He has submitted that that order under section 263 is a speaking order passed after providing proper oppo…

Clix Capital Services Private Limited, Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Pcit, Plot No. 23, 5Th Floor, Aggarwal Delhi-1, Delhi Corporate Tower Govind Lal Sikka Marg, Rajendra Place, West Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, India, 110008 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacc0642F

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Bharati, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37

…umar Sharma reported in 335 ITR 83 (Del) c. CIT Vs. Amalgamations Ltd reported in 238 ITR 963 (Mad) d. Hari Iron Trading Company Vs. CIT reported in 263 ITR 437 (P&H) e. CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd reported in 294 ITR 310 (Del) f. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 8. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we dismiss the preliminary argument of the ld DR that the ld AO had not indicated his mind in the assessment order by stating as to whether any enquiry was made on the issues that are sought to be revised by the ld PCIT u/s 263 of the Act. 9. Now let us examine whether in respect of each of…

Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited, New Delhi vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2844/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 94(7)

…l to the Page | 23 ITA No. 2844/Mum/2024 Α.Υ. 2019-20 Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited interests of the revenue. The question as to when an order can be termed as “erroneous” was explained by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd (203 ITR 108) as under:- "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 the law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order should have been…

CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.

What is CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.

Aamir Khan Production Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-8, Mumbai

Micromax Informatics Ltd, New Delhi vs. PCIT, Delhi

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Te Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd

Bharatkumar Ranchodbhai Soni, Na vs. Arivs.PCIT, Valsad

Ajay Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Meerut

Dlf Home Developers Limited, New Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, New Delhi

Sita Rama Raju Sagi, Bhimavaram vs. ITO Ward 1 Bhimavaram, Bhimavaram

Radial International Mining Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT (Central), New Delhi

Vijaya Lakshmi Ravula, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

Swarajyam Dontireddy, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

Veerareddy Gogula, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

Konda Srinivasa Reddy, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

Assotech Moonshine Urban Developers P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

Apurva Natvar Parikh & Co. Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-6, Mumbai

Pramukh Aranya Developers, Junagadh vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

P P Corporation, Rajkot vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot

Mmtc Ltd vs. DCIT Circle 5(1)

Pushp Raj Bohra, Jalore vs. Pr. CIT – 1, Jodhpur

Clix Capital Services Private Limited, Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, Delhi

Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited, New Delhi vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai