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 ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –Mere change of opinion revision was held to be not valid. [ S. 54B ]

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court -Ex parte order can be recalled if sufficient cause shown [ S. 260A(7), 263, 68 , Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908, O.XLI , r. 21. ]

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Strictures passed against Dept’s Advocate for “most unreasonable attitude” of seeking to reargue settled concluded issues and not following the judicial discipline and law of precedents – Infrastructure facility – – Container freight station ( CFS) is eligible deduction as an infrastructure facility [ S.80IA ]

S.260A: Appeal -High Court- Mesne profit – Capital or revenue -Dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the department has not filed an appeal against the Judgement of special Bench was held to be not justified – High Court was directed to hear the appeal on merits [ S.4 ]

S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal – Interim stay-Contempt- Strictures passed against the Department for confronting, showing resentment and displeasure to the Tribunal for granting interim stay against recovery of demand. Petition of revenue was dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited in Prime Minister’s Relief fund within 15 days of receipt of the copy of this order. [ S. 11 ]