CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd (Bom)

263 ITR 108High Court1993#24220 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 192 Section 194C Section 201 Section 263 Section 40(a)(ia)

Judgments citing CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd (Bom)

ASHOKKUMAR PROJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,PORBANDAR vs. THE PR. CIT, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appear of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.83/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Ashokkumar Projects India P. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, 4Th Floor, Manek Centre, P.N. Cholera Arcade, M.G. Road Opposite, Bhaveshwar Mahadev Marg, Jamnagar - 361008 Temple, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamca5891Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194CSection 263Section 40

…t, does not lie. As stated above, during the course of the scrutiny assessment proceeding, the assessee furnished full details. ITANo.83/RJT/2024 Ashok Kumar Project India P. Ltd. 18.Hon`ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd (Bom) 263 ITR 108 - , on identical facts, as that of assessee, held as follows: "The Income Tax Officer in the case had made enquiries in regard to the nature of the expenditure incurred by the assessee. The assessee had given a detailed explanation in that regard by a letter in writing. All these were part of the record of the case. Evidently, the claim was allow…

MR.BANSILAL I JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT-28, MUMBAI

ITA 5553/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodmr. Bansilal I. Jain Pr. Cit-28 Room No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Shop No.-1, Ratandeep Bldg, Sector – 9, Vashi, Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Vs. Navi Mumbai – 400703 Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400703

For Appellant: Shri Vallabh Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, CIT D.R

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…the same, thus, would by no means justify invocation of the provisions of Sec. 263 of the Act. In order to support his aforesaid contention the ld. A.R relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 263 ITR 108 (Bom). Further, relying on the order of the ITAT, Mumbai Benches “A”, Mumbai in Ambuja Cements Vs. CIT (LTU), Mumbai, ITA No. 3568/Mum/2016, dated 10.11.2017 it was submitted by the ld. A.R that a revisional authority remained under a statutory obligation for allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain as to why the assessment may not be held…

AMBO AGRO PRODUCTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE PCIT, KOLKATA-1, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 676/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50Section 50B

…d in 314 ITR Pg 81(SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "An Order of Assessment passed by the Assessing Officer should not be interfered with only, because another view is possible, 4 Ambo Agro Products Ltd., AY 2009-10 6. CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd (Bom) 263 ITR 108 - The Hon'ble High Court held that "the Income Tax Officer in the case had made enquiries in regard to the nature of the expenditure incurred by the assessee. The assessee had given a detailed explanation in that regard by a letter in writing. All these were part of the record of the case. Evidently, the claim was allowed by the Income Tax Office…