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 366,339 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.

Shri Chetan Sharma, Kanpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur

In the result, both appeals are allowed

ITA 343/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 153DSection 263

…ing Officer did make necessary ITA Nos. 343 & 344/LKW/2019 Page 13 of 20 inquiries even on the issues which are subject matter of order under section 263 of the Act. (B.1) The Ld. AR for the assessee placed reliance on the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108 (Bom). (B.1.1) The Ld. CIT-Departmental Representative (DR) strongly supported the impugned order passed by the Ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act. She contended that the Assessing Officer should have conducted deeper inquiries on the basis of materials available before him, especially the report of Investigation Wing of Kolkata, which is ann…

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ltu-2, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1571/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570 & 1571/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, V. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaaci-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. C. Naresh, Ca : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 1570 & 1571/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner of 763, Anna Salai, v. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [PAN: AAACI-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. C. Nare…

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu-2, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1570/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570 & 1571/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, V. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaaci-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. C. Naresh, Ca : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 1570 & 1571/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner of 763, Anna Salai, v. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [PAN: AAACI-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. C. Nare…

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1569/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1569/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, V. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaaci-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. C. Naresh, Ca : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, CA
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 41Section 41(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 1569/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner of 763, Anna Salai, v. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [PAN: AAACI-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. C. Naresh, CA : Shri. Nil…

Alok Vijawat, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Udaipur

ITA 605/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…1 आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 605/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2019-20 Shri Alok Vijawat cuke The PCIT Vs. Udaipur Station Road, Masjid Ke Samne Bhawani Mandi, Jhalawar 326 502 LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AERPV0538 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Devang Gargieya, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: M…

Sunitha, Coimbatore vs. PCIT -1, Coim, Batore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2013/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, IRS, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 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 (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…

Agricom Foods Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Mumbai-2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2716/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Dr.K.R.Subhash,CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 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 bee…

Agricom Foods Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2709/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Dr.K.R.Subhash,CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 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 bee…

Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT, Corp Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N.V.Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

…ation Pvt. Ltd. :: 10 :: 27. In Kumar Rajaram v. ITO [2019] 110 taxmann.com 109/267 Taxman 65/[2020] 426 ITR. 185 (Mad.), the Court considered the scope of section 263 of the Act and after noting the decision in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 71 Taxman 585/203 ITR 108 (Bom.) and the decision of the High Court of Delhi in CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxman 436/[2011] 332 ITR 167 held that the power exercised under section 263 of the Act was on account of mere change of opinion. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:- 5. The Commissioner had issued show cause notice dated 12-3-2015 unde…

Chaitalee Sachin Deokar, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, -It -2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2806/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69BSection 69C

…sue on which the assessments were reopened. Accordingly it was contended that the revision proceedings initiated u/s 263 of the Act is not valid in law. The assessee relied upon following case law in support of his contentions:- (i) CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd 9203 ITR 108)(Bom) (ii) CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd (332 ITR 167)(Delhi) (iii) CIT Vs. Vikas Polymers (341 ITR 537)(Delhi) (iv) CIT Vs. Arvind Jeweller (259 ITR 502)(Guj) 5.The Ld Pr. CIT was not convinced with the contentions of the assessee and accordingly held that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Accordingly he s…

Sonal Sandeep Satav, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-2, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 945/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHREE G.D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.945/PUN/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sonal Sandeep Satav, Principal Commissioner of A/1, Chhatrapati Shivaji Hsg. Soc., Income Tax, Pune - 2 Opp. Patrakar Nagar, Vs. Gokhalenagar, Pune-411016 PAN : ASDPB2963J अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sarang Gudhate Department by : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date of hearing : 16-10-2024 Date of 03-12-2024 Pronouncement :…

Anand Construwell Private Limited, Nashik vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik -1, Nashik

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

ITA 955/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.955/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Anand Construwell Private Vs. Pcit-1, Nashik. Limited, Ramchandra Apartments, Makhmalabad Road, Panchvati, Nashik- 422003. Pan : Aafca7736H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Pcit-1, Nashik [‘Ld. Pcit’] For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Basis Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed U/S. 263 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Nashik May Please Be Quashed. 2. On The Basis Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Is Not Justified In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 By Holding That Provisions Of Section 69C Are Applicable In The Present Case As The Assessee Was Not Able To Explain The Sources Of Expenditure

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 69C

…ttracted in the instant case. In support of his contention, ld. AR appearing for the assessee relied on the various judgements/decisions which are as follows and accordingly requested to set-aside the order passed by Ld. PCIT :- 7 CIT vs. Gabrial India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bom.). (ii) CIT vs. M/s RAdhika Creation, ITA No.692/2019 dated 30.04.2010. (iii) JCIT vs. Sarvhit Trust, ITA No.2745/Del/2016, dated 22.02.2022. (iv) ITO vs. M/s. Growel Energy Co. Ltd., ITA No.338/Mum/2011, dated 13.06.2014. 5. Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue placed heavy reliance on the order passed by Ld. PCIT and relied on the following ju…

Money Magnum Constructions, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 27, Mumbai

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

ITA 2445/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Money Magnum Constructions Pr. Cit, Circle-27 Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, Plot No. 157 Samruddhi, 18Th Road, Near Ambedkar Garden, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Station, Vs. Chembur (E), Mumbai-400 071 Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703. Pan/Gir No. Aacfn 9126 C (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Paresh Shaparia : Ms.Sanyogita Nagpal Respondent By : 09.09.2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pcit, Mumbai-27 (‘Ld. Pcit For Short), Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Relevant To Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: I. “Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Bad In Law: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Pr. Cit 27 Erred In Treating The Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 24 March 2022 (Re-Assessment Order) As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue & Thereby Setting Aside The Order. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Pr.Cit 27 Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Original Assessment Order As Well As Re- Assessment Order Have Duly Considered The Transaction Of Nsel Commodity Loss Of Rs

For Appellant: Shri. Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: 09.09.2024
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…nvoking revisionary powers u/s. 263 of the 4 Money Magnum Constructions vs. Pr. CIT Act holding the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions : - a. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (HC) b. Synthetic & Art Silk Mills Research Association Vs. CIT (Exemption) [2024] 158 taxmann.com 264 (Mumbai –Trib.) c. Impact Foundation (India) Vs. CIT (Exemptions) [2023] 149 taxmann.com 189 (Mumbai-Trib.). 7. The ld. DR on the other hand controverted the said fact and stated that the ld. AO has not inquired into the modus operandi of…

Asian Hotels (North) Limited, New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi-1, New Delhi

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

ITA 654/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember M/S. Asian Hotels (North) Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, 1A, Hotel Hyatt Regency, Delhi – 1. Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110 066. (Pan: Aaaca0125H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi-1 (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Pcit’) Dated 31.03.2021 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.09.2016 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.32,48,76,393/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143 (3)

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 438

…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 f…

Max Hospitals and Allied Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai -3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2907/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Max Hospitals & Principal Allied Services Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor, Income Tax Mumbai- 3 Man Excellenza, Room No.612, Vs. S. V. Road, 6Th Floor, Vile Parle (W.), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400056 Maharishi Karve Road, Pan: Aagcr9198D Mumbai- 400020. Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogia Nagpal (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…utta Max Hospitals and Allied Services; A. Y.2018-19 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 mus…

Shivam Readymix Private Limited, Neemuch vs. The PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 69C

…g in mind entirety of the case we vacate the impugned revision order. The assessee gets the relief accordingly.” 13 Shivam Readymix Pvt. Ltd. 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”. In Gabriel India Ltd. (supra), it was expressly observed: - "The Commissioner cannot initiate proceedings with a view to starting fishing and roving enquiries in matters or orders which are already concluded. Such action will be agains…

V.S. Natarajan, Thanjavur vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), Chennai

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1604/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1603 & 1604/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Valikaramuthu Subramanian Assistant Commissioner Of Natarajan, V. Income-Tax, No. 104-B, 3Rd Street, Central Circle -3(2), Mangalapuram, Medical College Chennai. Road, Voc Nagar, Thanjavur – 613 007. [Pan: Acypn-0616-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 263

…itute his view in place of that of the Assessing officer merely because the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax thinks that the assessment should have been completed in another way. It has been held by the Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108)(Bom) as to when an order can be termed as erroneous: "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, ac…

V.S. Natarajan, Thanjavur vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), Chennai

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1603/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1603 & 1604/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Valikaramuthu Subramanian Assistant Commissioner Of Natarajan, V. Income-Tax, No. 104-B, 3Rd Street, Central Circle -3(2), Mangalapuram, Medical College Chennai. Road, Voc Nagar, Thanjavur – 613 007. [Pan: Acypn-0616-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 263

…itute his view in place of that of the Assessing officer merely because the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax thinks that the assessment should have been completed in another way. It has been held by the Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108)(Bom) as to when an order can be termed as erroneous: "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, ac…

Faiveley Transport Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Hosur vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1598/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80

…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…

Versatile Card Technology Private Limited, Sidco, Chromepet, Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-3, Income Tax Office, Main Building - IV Floor, Nungambakkam, Chennai

ITA 1392/CHNY/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1392/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Versatile Card Technology Private Principal Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, Chennai -3, Ac-21, 4Th Main Road, Sidco Income Tax Office, Main Industrial Estate, Building, Iv Floor, Thirumudivakkam, Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chrompet, Chennai – 600 044. [Pan:Aabcv-0567-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Gopal Krishna Raju, Ca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Gopal Krishna Raju, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…of the Assessing officer merely because the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax thinks that the assessment should have been completed in another way. It has been held by the Bombay High Court in the :-12-: ITA. No: 1392/Chny/2024 case of Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108)(Bom) as to when an order can be termed as erroneous: "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, a…