SHRI AMRITPAL SINGH (PROP),JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If one of them is absent – if the order of the ITO is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the Revenue recourse cannot be had to s. 263(1) of the Act. There

WALIA CONSTRUCATION COMPANY ,PATHANKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

revised u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act. This is for your information and necessary action please in this regard'. 05. Reply of the assessee has been perused and duly considered and found not tenable on the ground that assessee has simply stated that the receipt/income shown in the profit and loss account filed with return of income

M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

u/s 263 only after an enquiry by him to establish the twin conditions. 36. Further we are also the opinion that merely the assessing officer has formed an opinion which is not in line of thinking of the revisional Commissioner and there are two possible views, then also the revisional Commissioner cannot exercise the power for provision under section 263

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

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

depreciation thereon. (f) Basis of valuation of unquoted current investment sold during the year to a sister concern. 4. It is the aforesaid order of the Ld. Pr.CIT which is in challenge before us and the grounds raised by the assessee challenge both the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction 4 A.Y.2015-16 by the Ld. Pr.CIT u/s 263