S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Dividend-Allocation of expenses-Order of Assessing Officer is not erroneous-Limited scrutiny-Enquiry as to source of investment in mutual fund units neither envisaged nor called for Revision order is quashed.[S. 10(35), 142(1), 143(3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Revision-Possible-Commissioner giving directions to Assessing Officer without pointing out how view taken by Assessing Officer was wrong-Revision is quashed.[S. 142(1), 143(3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Income from other sources-Compensation for acquisition of agricultural land-Interest on compensation-Two views possible-Revision order is quashed. [S.4, 56(2)(vii) 143(3), Land Acquisition Act, 1894,S. 28]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Order in the name of deceased-Invalid assessment could not be revised-Revision order is quashed. [S.50C, 143(3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited Scrutiny-The other issues related to revision were duly scrutinised and accepted by the AO by taking into consideration full details filed by the assessee-Revision order is quashed. [S.14A, 36(1(iii), 80JJAA(b)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue AO conducted a proper inquiry and after proper application of mind-taking permissible view-PCIT was wrong in holding the order of AO erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. [115JB, 143(3), 144C]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Sale of immovable property and purchase or construction of new residential property-Information required under notices, and replies submitted leaving no doubt as to the adequacy of inquiry caused by AO-No substance to conclude assessment order is erroneous-The revision order is not sustainable. [S.54]

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Departmental representative is not permitted to set up an altogether a new case.[S. 15, 17(3)(i)]

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Additional evidence-Admitted-Internal TNMM method-Segmental financial statement certified by independent accountant admitted as additional evidence-Additional evidence to be admitted for substantial justice. [S. 40A(2), ITAT Rule 29]

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Condonation of delay of 2359 days-CIT directed the AO to pass fresh order following decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu (1964)53 ITR 114(SC)-The AO passed order without following this direction-CIT(A) dismissed the appeal against the order of the AO on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable-Tribunal held that appeal was maintainable and considering facts of the case, condoned delay of 2359 days and restored the matter to the file of the AO. [S. 155(16), 263]