PRIYANKA,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

revised but there must ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 37 be an element of un-sustainability which clothes the Commissioner with the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Also in the case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Project Ltd reported in 343 ITR 329, it was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High

SHRI RAJEEV GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

revised but there must ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 37 be an element of un-sustainability which clothes the Commissioner with the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Also in the case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Project Ltd reported in 343 ITR 329, it was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High

SH. PARSHOTAM GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

revised but there must ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 37 be an element of un-sustainability which clothes the Commissioner with the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Also in the case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Project Ltd reported in 343 ITR 329, it was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High

M/S PARDEEP ISPAT(P) LTD.,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

revised but there must ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 37 be an element of un-sustainability which clothes the Commissioner with the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Also in the case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Project Ltd reported in 343 ITR 329, it was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

263, as the assessee company has claimed deduction u/s 80-IA(4)(iv) of correct taxable profit, which has been already accepted by the Transfer Pricing Officer and also by the concerned Assessing Officer in the orders passed u/s 92CA and 143(3) of the Act. The Copy of order passed u/s 143(3) is attached as Annexure

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

263, as the assessee company has claimed deduction u/s 80-IA(4)(iv) of correct taxable profit, which has been already accepted by the Transfer Pricing Officer and also by the concerned Assessing Officer in the orders passed u/s 92CA and 143(3) of the Act. The Copy of order passed u/s 143(3) is attached as Annexure

SBS BIOTECH UNIT II,SIRMOUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

revision proceedings. The satisfaction must be one which is objectively justifiable and cannot be the mere ipse dixit of the Commissioner as held in case of G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Ltd. [2003] 263 ITR 255 (SC). 8. It was further submitted that where Assessing Officer having examined relevant material on record, passed the assessment order in case of assessee

SHRI BALBIR SINGH VERMA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is bad in law in as much as the date of order as per the impugned order is 19.03.2020 and which has been signed without mentioning of a DIN. As per the separate order, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has mentioned

EXOTIC REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

u/s. 263 of the Act issued by the Pr. CIT is vague and only for making deeper enquiry and re-considering the evidences already on record duly considered during assessment proceedings based on purported proposal that fresh facts have been emerged subsequent to the order of assessment which is factually incorrect and untenable and the conditions or the factors enabling

CEIGALL INDIA LIMITED, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

revision proceedings u/s 263. 5 2.6 After considering the assessee’s reply dated 26.03.2025, the PCIT held that the AO failed to make adequate enquiries, invoked Explanation 2(a) to section 263, and set aside the assessment for de novo consideration. The finding of the Ld. PCIT is given in paragraphs5.1 to 5.67 and 8. In para

M/S SINGH CONSTRUCTION CO.,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PATIAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

u/s 263, the AO was entitled to consider only those matters in respect of which directions have been given by the ld CIT and not entitled to consider any other matter a fresh for making the additions or for that matter, disturb the matters which have already attained finality while passing the original assessment order. The same reasoning applies

BHUPINDER SINGH SON OF SH. GURMUKH SINGH ,PUNJAB vs. THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDIGARH-1, C.R BUILDING HIMALAYA MARG, SECTOR 17-E, CHANDIGARH, PUNJAB

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

u/s 263, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter. 12.10 Reliance was place on following judgement too: “ Happy Forgings Ltd. Vs. JCIT as reported in (2015) 58 taxmann.com 65(Chandigarh-Trib) Where Assessing Officer allowed depreciation on forging press after being satisfied with explanation of assesse which was supported by documents, Commissioner was not justified in invoking

VIRGO ALUMINUM LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. PR. C.I.T., CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 438/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

263(1) of the Act was regarding the allowance of deduction u/s 80IC(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, for which, the the Ld. PCIT show caused the assesse as under: "4. It is further noted that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IC(2)(a)(ii) of the Act amounting to Rs.3,24,45,802/- for the first time

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act has already discussed the issue on merit also. The Tribunal in this respect has also relied on another decision of the Tribunal in the own case of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 also and after detailed discussions it has been held that the works carried out by the assessee

M/S CHEEMA BOILERS LTD.,,MOHALI vs. PR. CIT-2, MOHALI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 748/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

263 was passed by the ld. Pr. CIT-2 Chandigarh on 27.03.2018 on two issues i.e., Firstly, on the issue of wrong claim of depreciation. As the capital subsidy was not reduced from the cost of capital for calculating depreciation with the direction to the Assessing officer to complete assessment afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the show

RAJ KAMAL GANDHI,NEW SHIMLA vs. PR. CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. The assessee had submitted the details before the PCIT, however, the Ld. PCIT was of the view that the Assessing officer in the assessment proceedings had not properly examined the issue as to the written down value (WDV) claimed by the assessee in respect of the building. He, therefore, directed the Assessing officer

RAJ KAMAL GANDHI,NEW SHIMLA vs. ITO, W-1, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. The assessee had submitted the details before the PCIT, however, the Ld. PCIT was of the view that the Assessing officer in the assessment proceedings had not properly examined the issue as to the written down value (WDV) claimed by the assessee in respect of the building. He, therefore, directed the Assessing officer

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

revision order cannot be sustained as the order of PCIT made u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been set aside by the Hon'ble ITAT. Howeyer, in the present case, no order u/s 263 of the Income Tax act, 1961 has been passed and the assessment has been framed u/s