S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Property held for charitable purposes-Spending from accumulation of income of earlier year-The Assessing Officer had conducted necessary enquiries regarding utilization of income for purpose for which it was accumulated and had accepted same which was a plausible view, impugned revision order was untenable .[S. 11(3), 11 (5)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Salary income-Detailed enquiries into claim of assessee’s income being ‘exempt’ under the Act-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 5, 192]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Provision for doubtful debts-Revision bad in law where the A.O. has taken view possible in respect of standard asset where there was inherent risk of going these debts bad-Revision is upheld in cases where amount was receivable from Government in respect of debts waived off. [S. 36(1)(vii), 36(1)(via)(2)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Survey-AO completed assessment after considering survey statement, issued specific notice in this regard during assessment-assessee filed explanation-Order of AO could not be held erroneous-Revision order is set aside.[S. 115BBE,133A]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny-AO recorded specific finding that books of accounts produced were examined on test check basis-AO even disallowed certain expenditure in assessment proceedings-Order could not be treated as erroneous-Revision order is set aside.

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-CIT set aside assessment order to AO holding it as erroneous on the issue of excess deduction allowed, since issues considered by CIT were purely on facts, CIT himself has to decide-Matter remitted back to him to consider material and draw conclusion. [80IC]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital or Revenue expenditure-Consumables revenue expenditure allowable in the year in which put in line of production-Allowance in previous years not erroneous-Assessing Officer taking sustainable view after enquiry-Revision is not warranted. [S. 32, 37(1)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Possible view taken by Assessing Officer after pursuing all the evidences-In line with view taken by Tribunal-Revision not warranted. [S. 54]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Order of Tribunal-Weightage to Tribunal order not given-Against fundamental Principles of judicial discipline-Revision is not sustainable.[S. 2(22)(e), 254(1)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Assessing Officer calling for details of advertisement and sales promotion during assessment-Possible view taken after going through evidences-Order of Assessing Officer is not erroneous-PCIT is not justified-Revision is not warranted.[S. 37(1)]