Complex 2. 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT v Max India Ltd. 3. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. 4

Q: How many judgments cite Complex 2. 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT v Max India Ltd. 3. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. 4?

10 judgments on BharatTax cite Complex 2. 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT v Max India Ltd. 3. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. 4 (387 ITR 691), spanning 2017 to 2021.

387 ITR 691High Court2016#10583 most cited

What is Complex 2. 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT v Max India Ltd. 3. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. 4 authority for?

If an Assessing Officer has raised questions and considered an issue during assessment proceedings, the fact that the issue is not discussed in the assessment order does not automatically mean the Assessing Officer did not apply their mind. A revisional authority cannot direct a fuller inquiry if the Assessing Officer has already conducted a proper inquiry and adopted a possible view.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Also referred to as

CIT v Gera Development P Ltd · 387 ITR 691 · Section 263 · revision · Assessing Officer · application of mind · adequate enquiry · revisional jurisdiction

Judgments citing Complex 2. 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT v Max India Ltd. 3. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. 4

Sanaa Ashiqali Raval, Mumbaui vs. Rp. CIT - 19, Mumbai

ITA 318/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansanaa Ashiqali Raval, Flat No.42, 2Nd Floor, Ajay Apartment, 25, Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026 Pan: Aihpr7427D ............ Appellant Vs. Pr. Cit-19 Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 ............ Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Hero Rai, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Amrish Bedio, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…ses, the ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: 1. 395 ITR 1 (SC) CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex 2. 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT v Max India Ltd. 3. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT v Gabriel India Ltd. 4. 305 CTR 486 (Bom) CIT v Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. 5. 387 ITR 691 (Bom) CIT v Gera Development P Ltd. 6. 372 ITR 303 (Bom) CIT v Fine Jewellery India Ltd. 7. 301 ITR 407 (Bom) Idea Cellular Ltd. v DCIT 8. 323 ITR 206 (Bom) CIT v Development Credit Bank Ltd 7. The ld. AR had further submitted that the PCIT for the purposes of justifying the order under section 263 of the Act relied upon the Explanation- (2) to…

Goldmohur Design and Apparel Park Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm. of Income Tax - 7, Mumbai

ITA 3971/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodgoldmohar Design & Pr. Cit-7 R. No. 628, 6Th Floor, Apparel Park Ltd. 145, Goldmohar Mill, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Dada Saheb Phalke Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Dadar (E), Mumbai- 400 014 Pan – Aadcg1613M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. T. Kipgen &

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

…ii) Goldmohar Desine and Apparel Park Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT-7 20 ITA No.3971/Mum/2017 A.Y 2012-13 Grasim Industry Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom); (iii) CIT Vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 458 (Bom); (iv) CIT Vs. Gera Development (P) Ltd. (2016) 387 ITR 691 (Bom); and (v) CIT Vs. Kiran Hirji Shah (2015) 56 Taxman.com 360 (Bom). On the basis of his aforesaid contentions, it was the claim of the ld. A.R that if the A.O while framing the assessment had adopted one of the possible view in law, the Pr. CIT was divested of invoking his revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 263 of the Act. Apart from that, it…

Shree Bal Properties & Finance P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT 2, Mumbai

ITA 2848/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Shree Bal Properties & Finance P. Ltd Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax -2, 4, Buona Case, Sir P.M Road, Room No. 344, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Opp. Kashmir Arts Emporium, M.K Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Fort, Mumbai - 400 001. Pan –Aaccs1776N M/S Shree Bal Properties & Finance P. Ltd Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 2(3)(2), 4, Buona Case, Sir P.M Road, Room No. 552, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Opp. Kashmir Arts Emporium, M.K Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Fort, Mumbai - 400 001. Pan – Aaccs1776N Appellant By: S/Shri Mihir Naniwadekar & Kalpesh Turalkar, A.Rs Respondent By: S/Shri Salil Mishra, Cit D.R & V.Vinod Kumar, D.R Date Of Hearing: 04.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.06.2020

For Appellant: S/shri Mihir Naniwadekar & Kalpesh Turalkar, A.RsFor Respondent: S/shri Salil Mishra, CIT D.R & V.Vinod Kumar, D.R

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263

…g of the appeal had failed to support his aforesaid claim, which we find is devoid and bereft of any merit, therefore, the same is rejected. 7. We shall now deal with the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT Vs. Gera Development P. Ltd. (2016) 387 ITR 691 (Bom) relied upon by the assessee. In the said case, the Hon’ble High Court had observed that if the A.O had considered an issue by raising questions during the assessment proceedings, then the mere fact that it does not fall for discussion in the assessment order would not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer did not appl…

Aha Holdings P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 6, Mumbai

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

ITA 1993/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 1993/Mum/2019 (निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Aha Holdings Private Limited The Pr. Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, Trade View Building, Income Tax-6, बनाम/ Oasis Complex, Kamala Mills, Room No. 515, 5 Th Floor, Gate No.4, Pandurang Budhkar Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Vs. Marg, Lowe Parel, Karve Road, Mumbai-400 013 Mumbai -400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aafcs6404E अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Hioro Rai, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Harit, Cit Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, उपाध्यक्ष / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Hioro Rai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT DR

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

…considered the issue, wherein the AO has examined the details and allowed the claim of the assessee in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom), the another case law of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gera Development P. Ltd. 387 ITR 691 (Bom.), wherein the similar issue was considered and held as under: - “7. We have considered the rival submissions. With regard to issue (a) i.e. taxability of the transfer of development right, we find that the impugned order of the ITAT records findings of Assessing Officer in detail from which it is evident 11 | P a g e M/s AHA Holdings Priv…

Hi-Rock Construction Co., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4327/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Hi Rock Construction Co. Pr. Cit -32 C-11, 2Nd Floor, 903, A, Gurukul Tower, Cst No. 890, J. S. Road, Dahisar (W), Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan: Aaffh6403B Mumbai. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi with Shri Shubham Rathi (AR)For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas (CIT-DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Hi Rock Construction Co. Pr. CIT -32 C-11, 2nd Floor, 903, A, Gurukul Tower, CST No. 890, J. S. Road, Dahisar (W), Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Bandra Kurla Complex, PAN: AAFFH6403B Mumbai. Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Vipul Joshi with Shri Shubham Rathi (AR) Respondent by : Shri B. Srinivas (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing : 13.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 18.12.2019 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appe…

Noble Medicals Bcjc Hospitals, Mumbai vs. CIT City-16, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3207/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Noble Medicals Bcjc Cit, City-16, Hospitals, S.V. Road, Santacruz, Mumbai. Mumbai-400054. Versus Pan No.Aagfn4356A Applicant Respondent

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

…erest of revenue. The reliance is made in case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], Grasim Industry Ltd. vs. CIT [(2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom)], CIT vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. [(2014) 367 ITR 458 (Bom)], CIT vs. Gera Developments (P) Ltd. [(2016) 387 ITR 691(Bom)] and CIT vs. Kiran Hirji Shah [(2015) 56 taxmann.com 360(Bom)]. In other alternative submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that no revisional power should be exercised for directing full enquiry, where the AO has already conducted sufficient enquiry and has taken a possible view after the enquiry. The power of revision can only exer…

Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (HUF), Mumbai vs. Jt CIT RG 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1435/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhbibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Cit-19, Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Piramal Chambers, Parel, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Jt.Cit-Range-19(1), Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi (Ar Revenue By : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 .02.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi (ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (HUF), CIT-19, Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Piramal Chambers, Parel, 12th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400052. PAN: AAAHG1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (HUF), Jt.CIT-Range-19(1), Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 12th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400052. PAN: AAAHG1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vipul Joshi (AR Revenue by : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh (DR) Date of hearing…

Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (HUF), Mumbai vs. CIT 19, Mumbai

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

ITA 5129/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi (ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263

Gehna Jewellers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 12, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3530/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…, the revisional authority cannot exercise power conferred therein. In support of his contention, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Gabrial India Ltd., 203 ITR 108; ii) CIT v/s Geera Development Pvt. Ltd., 387 ITR 691; iii) CIT v/s Fine Jewellery India Ltd., 372 ITR 303; and iv) Priyanka Regency Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, ITA no.2944/Mum./2014, dated 8th February 2017. 7. Learned Departmental Representative justifying the exercise of power under section 263 of the Act by the learned PCIT submitted, the Assessing Officer during the assessment pr…

Priyanka Regency Builders & Developers P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT 10, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2944/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2944/ Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year -2009-10) बिाम/ Priyanka Regency Builders & Commissioner Of Income Tax-10, Room No.574, 5Th Floor, Developers Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Priyanka Complex, Shop No.12- Aayakar Bhavan, A, Plot No.4, Sector-10, M K Road, Sanpada, Mumbai-400020 Navi Mumbai-400705 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Pandit

Section 143(3)Section 263

…on records as the AO has passed assessment order by taking and examining every aspects which was raised by the CIT in the show cause notice. The ld. CIT V/s Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 303 (Bombay) and CIT v. Gera Developments (P.) Ltd. [2016] 387 ITR 691 (Bombay) and prayed that in view of the ratio laid down in the decision (supra) the proceedings under section 263 initiated by the CIT be quashed and assessment order passed by the AO should be upheld. 6. On the contrary, the ld. DR relied heavily on the order of the CIT by submitting that the AO has completely failed to go into the various issu…