SHRI. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

u/s 263 of the Act, we are of the view that the PCIT while invoking section 263 of the act, he has acted as quasi- judicial authority and has judicious powers at par to the other income tax authorities having quasi judicial powers under different section of the act and therefore, the orders dated 29.03.2016, passed by the PCIT, under

SH. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

u/s 263 of the Act, we are of the view that the PCIT while invoking section 263 of the act, he has acted as quasi- judicial authority and has judicious powers at par to the other income tax authorities having quasi judicial powers under different section of the act and therefore, the orders dated 29.03.2016, passed by the PCIT, under

SHRI SUBASH CHANDER GUPTA & SONS,JAMMU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX , SRINAGAR

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

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

revised grounds of appeal as under: 2 Subash Chander Gupta & Sons v. Pr.CIT “1. That the Learned Principal CIT, Srinagar has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case by passing order u/s 263 without assuming jurisdiction and passing order on the basis of issue of show cause notice issued by office of and under name and designation

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

price of transaction seven if effected with the sister concern, nor has any such provisions being pointed out by the Ld. Pr.CIT. In any case, it was contended, the value of transaction stood justified with the BTA both original and revised entered into between both the parties agreeing to a particular of consideration. That the only requirement under

SH. GURBACHAN SINGH BRAR,MOGA vs. ITO, WARD - 1,, MOGA

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

price mentioned on the said document. In this AR had submitted that, appellant, during the course of assessment proceedings, 3.7. denied the charge of the Learned Assessing Officer that the said property was actually sold for Rs. 11.25 crores on the following grounds: i) The assessee does not know the source of the purported alleged documents in the possession

SH. SANTOKH SINGH BRAR,MOGA vs. ITO, WARD - 2,, MOGA

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

price mentioned on the said document. In this AR had submitted that, appellant, during the course of assessment proceedings, 3.7. denied the charge of the Learned Assessing Officer that the said property was actually sold for Rs. 11.25 crores on the following grounds: i) The assessee does not know the source of the purported alleged documents in the possession

M/S. SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

transfer pricing issues in the case of any person having international transactions or in case of a foreign company. It has been provided under sub-section (8) of section 144C that DRP may confirm, reduce or enhance the variations proposed in the draft order of the Assessing Officer. I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 36 Assessment Year: 2018-19 In a recent judgement