S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Excess stock-Survey-Additional income was offered-Specific queries raised by Assessing Officer and had explained that the only source of income of assessee was from business-Revision order of CIT for not invoking provision of section 115 BBE was quashed and set aside.[S. 28(i), 69, 115BBE, 133A, 143(3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Purchase of immovable property-Below circle rate-Sale consideration and DVO-determined FMV for assessee’s share was within permissible 10 per cent variation-CBDT Circular No. 8/2018-Revision by PCIT treating variation as taxable and Circular as prospective was an unsustainable, change of opinion not supported by law-Revision order was quashed. [S.50C, 56(2)(viib), 143(3), 147]

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Charitable purpose-Objects of general public utility-Providing a platform for conducting transactions of member banks-Charging only nominal fees to recover cost of infrastructure and operations-Assessing Officer, after making specific inquiries, allowed exemption under section 11-Revision order was quashed and set aside.[S. 2(15), 11, 12, Companies Act, 1956, S. 25]

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Expenditure on scientific research-DSIR’s quantification of eligible R&D expenditure in Form 3CL was mandatory-Failure to quantify the deduction-assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. [S. 35(2AB),143(3), R.6(7A)]

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Donation to political party-Bogus donation-Kisan Party of India-Allowed deduction after verifying supporting documents and evidence-No direct incriminating material against assessee-Revision order was quashed.[S.80GGC, 132]

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny-Deemed dividend-Assessing Officer passed assessment order in accordance with limited scrutiny assessment and did not make inquiries on issue of amount received by assessee company as loan from another company which was outside scope of CASS selection-Order cannot be treated as erroneous-Revision order was quashed-Tribunal also held that the deemed dividend can be taxed only in hands of shareholder of lending company, and not in hands of concern in which such shareholder is interested. [S. 2(22)(e), 143(3)]

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Deduction-Rectification application of revenue was dismissed. [S. 80P (2)(d)]

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Delay of 1370 days-Reasons for delay unexplained-Delay was not condoned.[S. 253]

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Expenditure on scientific research-Ex parte order-Matter was remitted back to CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.[S. 35(1)(ii), 250, 254(1)

S. 199: Deduction at source-Credit for tax deducted-Sale of property-Received part consideration in a later year-Income was offered in earlier year-Deduction of TDS at time of part settlement was to be allowed to assessee. [S. 143(1), R. 37BA]