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)

Vinay Ramsharandas Agrawal, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Nagpur

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 110/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.110/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year :2017–18) Vinay Ramsharandas Agrawal 1, Agrawal Estate, Amravati Road ……………. Appellant Wadi, Nagpur 440 023 PAN – ABGPA3839E v/s Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Nagpur–2, Nagpur Assessee by : Shri Kishore P. Dewani Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 06/01/2025 Date of Order – 21/03/2025 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. The instant appeal by the assessee is emanating from the impugned order d…

Sanket Jhabak, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 479/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

…t which has rightly been set-aside by the ITAT.” 34 Sanket Jhabak & Others Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur ITA No.478 & 479/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 233 to 237/RPR/2024 Also, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of 32. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), had held, that the Commissioner of Income Tax cannot revise the order merely because he disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the A.O. The Hon’ble High Court, observed that Section 263 does not visualize a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decis…

Sampat Lal Jhabak, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 478/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

…t which has rightly been set-aside by the ITAT.” 34 Sanket Jhabak & Others Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur ITA No.478 & 479/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 233 to 237/RPR/2024 Also, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of 32. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), had held, that the Commissioner of Income Tax cannot revise the order merely because he disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the A.O. The Hon’ble High Court, observed that Section 263 does not visualize a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decis…

Smt. Pushpa Jhabak, Raipur vs. PCIT-1, Raipur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 237/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

…t which has rightly been set-aside by the ITAT.” 34 Sanket Jhabak & Others Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur ITA No.478 & 479/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 233 to 237/RPR/2024 Also, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of 32. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), had held, that the Commissioner of Income Tax cannot revise the order merely because he disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the A.O. The Hon’ble High Court, observed that Section 263 does not visualize a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decis…

Smt. Tilottama Jhabak, Raipur vs. PCIT-1, Raipur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 236/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

…t which has rightly been set-aside by the ITAT.” 34 Sanket Jhabak & Others Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur ITA No.478 & 479/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 233 to 237/RPR/2024 Also, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of 32. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), had held, that the Commissioner of Income Tax cannot revise the order merely because he disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the A.O. The Hon’ble High Court, observed that Section 263 does not visualize a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decis…

Smt. Sushila Devi Jhabak, Raipur vs. PCIT-1, Raipur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 235/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

…t which has rightly been set-aside by the ITAT.” 34 Sanket Jhabak & Others Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur ITA No.478 & 479/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 233 to 237/RPR/2024 Also, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of 32. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), had held, that the Commissioner of Income Tax cannot revise the order merely because he disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the A.O. The Hon’ble High Court, observed that Section 263 does not visualize a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decis…

Sanjog Jhabak L/H of Late Gautam Chand Jhabak, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 234/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

…t which has rightly been set-aside by the ITAT.” 34 Sanket Jhabak & Others Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur ITA No.478 & 479/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 233 to 237/RPR/2024 Also, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of 32. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), had held, that the Commissioner of Income Tax cannot revise the order merely because he disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the A.O. The Hon’ble High Court, observed that Section 263 does not visualize a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decis…

Sanjog Jhabak, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 233/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

…t which has rightly been set-aside by the ITAT.” 34 Sanket Jhabak & Others Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur ITA No.478 & 479/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 233 to 237/RPR/2024 Also, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of 32. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), had held, that the Commissioner of Income Tax cannot revise the order merely because he disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the A.O. The Hon’ble High Court, observed that Section 263 does not visualize a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decis…

Purna Purshottam Exports, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2143/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry , Jm & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri R.A.Dhyani, CIT,DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…essee to support its contentions relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC) also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom). 4. We have carefully considered all the relevant facts of the case as also rival submissions and the legal position in the matter. It appears that the ld. PCIT proposed action u/s 263 mainly on the ground of valuation of the diamonds and rate of diamond per carat which according to him was quite different from that is taken while framing…

Vivaa Tradecom Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 328/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal"नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vs. Vivaa Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., Principal Commissioner Of Shade No. 20, Shree Shhakti Income-Tax-4, Estate & Workhouse, Piplaj Ahmedabad Pirana Road, Saijpur-Gopalpur, Ahmedabad-302405 [Pan : Aaica 3968 J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क! तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क! तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12.02.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal:

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…assessment order. The grievance of the Commissioner was that the Assessing Officer should have made further inquires rather than accepting the explanation. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a case of ‘lack of inquiry’.” 10. In Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner (page 113) :- “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 him. If there are no materials on record on the basis of…

Mohammad Osman Mohammaf Haroonmotiwala, Auranganbad vs. PCIT- Nashik 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1133/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69B

…power vested in him in accordance with law and arrived at a conclusion. Such a conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous because the Ld. PCIT does not feel satisfied with the conclusion as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom). In other words, erroneous order does not mean an order with which the Ld. PCIT is unable to agree as observed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in Smt. Lila Chaudhary vs. CIT 167 Taxman 1 (Gau). Prejudicial to the interest of revenue would mean an erroneous order which goes against the interest of revenue collection. Both the conditions i.…

M/S Ehealthsystem Heaith-Care Ltd., Pune vs. PCIT-1, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 944/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.944/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Ehealthsystem Health- V The Pr.Cit-1, Care Ltd., S Pune. 1073, Bhosatemostique, Opposite Symbiosis, Gokhate Road, Model Colony, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aadcn5780C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pratik Sandbhor - Ar Revenue By Mr.Ajaykumar Keshari, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 20/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1, Passed Under

Section 133(6)Section 263

…।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.944/PUN/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s.EHealthsystem Health- V The Pr.CIT-1, Care Ltd., s Pune. 1073, BhosateMostique, Opposite Symbiosis, Gokhate Road, Model Colony, Pune – 411016. PAN: AADCN5780C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Pratik Sandbhor - AR Revenue by Mr.Ajaykumar Keshari, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 20/01/2025 Date of pronouncement 31/01/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER…

Shiv Vegpro Private Limited, Kota vs. PCIT-Udaipur, Udaipur

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

ITA 1014/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, (Adv.) &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, (CIT-DR)

Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…diction u/s 263. Jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be invoked for making short enquiries or to go into the process of assessment again and again merely on the basis that more enquiry ought to have been conducted to find something. 9.4.3 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 suomotu 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…

M/S N.A.M. Expressway Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.580/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) N.A.M.Expressway Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1) Delhi Hyderabad [Pan : Aadcn3131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms Ananya Kapoor & Shri Tarun Chanana, Ar (Through Virtual Mode) रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 28/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2019 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Ld.Pcit], Hyderabad-4 Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19 On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Salil KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Sewak, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 43B

…PCIT-6 (supra). We find that the Tribunal has considered an identical issue, in light of provisions of section 263 and also by following various judicial precedents, including the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108 held as under: 11. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the AO. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, for example, when an ITO adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it…

Ankur Goyal, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2524/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

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…

A T and S India Private Limited, Nanjangud, Mysore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1220/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit, Kolkata-2 A T & S India Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 12A, Industrial Area Nanjangud Chowringhee Square, Vs. H.O, Mysore-571301, Karnataka Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2930J Assessee By : Shri Anup Sinha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263

…efense of his argument, the ld. AR relied on the decision of CIT Vs. Max Indian Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) and CIT Vs. G M Mittal Stainless Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 255 (SC). The ld. AR also referred to the decision of CIT VS. Gabriel India Ld. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom). Finally, the ld. AR submitted that the jurisdiction invoked by the ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is invalid and bad in law and therefore, may kindly be quashed. AT & S India Pvt. Ld.; A.Y. 2018-19 06. The ld. DR on the other hand strongly rebutted the arguments put forth by the ld. AR by submitting that the provisions of warranty charged by…

Millennium Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1847/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanmillennium Developers Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-3, Ground Floor, Ceejay House, Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Bhavan, M. K. Road, Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aabcm6404C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri B. V. Jhaveri, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Shri Anurag Tripathi, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 18.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2025

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 253Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

…hence in view of the above facts, the order Millennium Developers Pvt. Ltd. of AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In support of its submissions, Ld. AR relied on the following judgments:- i) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay) ii) Aroni Commercial Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2014) 362 ITR 403 (Bombay) 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the decision of Ld. PCIT. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and examined the material placed on record as well as judgments relied upon by the parties. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Commissioner to Income Tax Vs. Gabri…

Nse Clearing Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 1218/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Respondent: Shri Jahangir Mistri, Sr. Adv. &

Section 11

…e AO is in accordance with law and cannot be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 15. In this respect, our attention was invited to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v/s. Gabriel India Limited (203 ITR 108) wherein upholding the order of the Tribunal, which had set aside the revision order of the CIT, held as under: - "The power of suo motu revision under subsection (1) is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction and the same can be exercised only if the circumstances specified therein exist. Two circumstances must exist to enable the Commissioner…

Nse Clearing Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 1216/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Jahangir Mistri, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Kishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 11

…e AO is in accordance with law and cannot be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 15. In this respect, our attention was invited to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v/s. Gabriel India Limited (203 ITR 108) wherein upholding the order of the Tribunal, which had set aside the revision order of the CIT, held as under: - “The power of suo motu revision under subsection (1) is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction and the same can be exercised only if the circumstances specified therein exist. Two circumstances must exist to enable the Commissione…

Horizon Dwellings Private Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 77/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriahorizon Dwellings Pvt Ltd V. Pcit, Bareilly, Navjeevan Appartments, Income Tax Department, Opposite Parag Factory, Bareilly (Up)-243001. Badaun Road, Kargaina, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aacch6839F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl

Section 143(3)Section 263

…f the Revenue. If one of the absent, Hon'ble Supreme Court held, i.e. if the order of the Assessing Officer is either not erroneous or to the prejudicial to the Revenue, re-cours cannot be had to Section 263 of the Act. In the case of CIT v Gabriel India Ltd, 203 ITR 108 (Bom); it was held as under: - it was held by Hon'ble High Court that substitution of judgment of Commissioner for that of the Assessing Officer is not permissible under section 263 of the Act, unless decision of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be termed as erroneous unless which is not in accorda…

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.

Vinay Ramsharandas Agrawal, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Nagpur

Sanket Jhabak, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

Sampat Lal Jhabak, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

Smt. Pushpa Jhabak, Raipur vs. PCIT-1, Raipur

Smt. Tilottama Jhabak, Raipur vs. PCIT-1, Raipur

Smt. Sushila Devi Jhabak, Raipur vs. PCIT-1, Raipur

Sanjog Jhabak L/H of Late Gautam Chand Jhabak, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

Sanjog Jhabak, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

Purna Purshottam Exports, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-Mumbai-1, Mumbai

Vivaa Tradecom Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-4, Ahmedabad

Mohammad Osman Mohammaf Haroonmotiwala, Auranganbad vs. PCIT- Nashik 1, Nashik

M/S Ehealthsystem Heaith-Care Ltd., Pune vs. PCIT-1, Pune

Shiv Vegpro Private Limited, Kota vs. PCIT-Udaipur, Udaipur

M/S N.A.M. Expressway Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

Ankur Goyal, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Ghaziabad

A T and S India Private Limited, Nanjangud, Mysore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-2, Kolkata

Millennium Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Mumbai

Nse Clearing Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1)(1), Mumbai

Nse Clearing Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1)(1), Mumbai

Horizon Dwellings Private Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly