S. 264 :Commissioner – Revision of other orders -Business expenditure -Real income -Non filing of revised return cannot be the ground to reject the application [ S. 37(i) ]
S. 264 :Commissioner – Revision of other orders -Business expenditure -Real income -Non filing of revised return cannot be the ground to reject the application [ S. 37(i) ]
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Educational expenses of director at abroad- Expenditure allowable or not requires greater scrutiny therefore revision was held to be justified [ S. 37(1) ]
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –Exemption was claimed in respect of share of profit was credited to partners account – Two views possible – Revision was held to be not valid [ S.10(2A)]
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Capital gains — Cost of acquisition —Tribunal directed the assesse to file relevant documents and directed the AO to decide accordance with law . [ S.45, 48 ]
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Derivative loss – Setting a side of order without giving any finding was held to be bad in law [ S.43(5) ]
S. 263: Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Even if there is lack of inquiry by the AO and the assessment order is “erroneous” under Explanation 2 to s. 263, the order is not “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” [ S. 2(43),40(a)(v)115JB]
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Source of capital contribution was explained – Source of the source cannot be gone in to – Revision was held to be bad in law [ S. 68 ]
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Income from letting out shops – Income from house property or business income – Two views possible – Revision was held to be not valid
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Enhancement of agricultural income -Failure to make proper enquiry by the AO in the course of assessment proceedings , revision was held to be valid – Tribunal was justified in admitting the additional evidence which was filed by the revenue [ S. 254(1) ]
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –Gift- Conclusion drawn by Assessing Officer was consistent with information provided by donors therefore revision was held to be not valid .[ S. 68 ]