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

section 263(1), it is clarified as above, that an order made by the 91[Joint] Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer 89a[or the Transfer Pricing

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

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

263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld.Principal CIT- Ill, Ludhiana is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to hold that the assessment order dated 30-03-2015 passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was erroneous in as much as prejudicial

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

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

263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld.Principal CIT- Ill, Ludhiana is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to hold that the assessment order dated 30-03-2015 passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was erroneous in as much as prejudicial

SMT. INDERMEET BAINS W/O SH. D.S. BAINS,BATHINDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the term indicated as above

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

section 263 cannot be taken into consideration and the Assessing Officer having taken a plausible view, the assessment as framed by the Assessing Officer cannot be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 8. Again, the Ld. Counsel, relied upon the judgment of Jurisdictional Bench of ITAT Amritsar Bench, Amritsar in the case of Sh. Jaswinder

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

section 2(42C). (g) Transfer of assets without transfer of liabilities is not a slump sale.” 45. Referring to the same he stated that except for stating that the AO had not examined whether the transaction qualified as slump sale as defined under the Act, the Ld. Pr.CIT has not pointed out as to how the detailed explanation furnished

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

section 263: The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and examine the 4 Subash Chander Gupta & Sons v. Pr.CIT record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing

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