Tribunal held that as regards lack of enquiry and non application of mind revision is held to be valid as regards other issues such as S.2 (22) (e) and repayment of loan, the revision is held to be bad in law. (AY. 2014-15)
Anand Lilaram Raisinghani v. PCIT (2020) 77 ITR 431 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Lack of enquiry and non application of mind–Revision is held to be valid – Repayment of brought forward loan–Revision is held to be not valid–Revision is up held partially. [S. 2(22)(e), 43B, 68]