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

1, Bathinda stating that the order of AO dated 30.12.2016 is as erroneous and prejudicial and it was recommended to PCIT to revise the said order u/s 263. Copy placed at pages 49 to 50 of the Paper Book. 10. 14.03.2019 One the basis of report of JCIT, Notice issued u/s 263 of the Act against the assessment order passed

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

1 to section 2(19AA) defining ‘demerger’. As per Explanation 3 to section 2(19AA), ‘undertaking’ shall include any part of an undertaking or a unit or division of an undertaking or a business activity taken as a whole, but does not include individual assets or liabilities or any combination thereof nt constituting a business activity. Explanation 2 to section

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

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

1 to 3, show cause notice dated 17.02.2021 issued for initiating proceedings u/s 263 has been appended. * PB-1 shows that SCN u/s 263 has been issued by "Office of DCIT/ACIT Circle, Sri Nagar". * At PB-03, SCN has been signed under name and designation of ACIT/DCIT Circle, Sri Nagar. * Email Don SCN mentioned is SRINAGAR>DCIT(S) INCOMETAX