S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –
Income from other sources – Purchase of immoveable property – difference in actual sale price and the stamp duty value – Addition of total stamp duty value- Matter remanded to CIT for further verification. [ S. 56(2)(x) , 69A ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –
Income from other sources – Interest -Zero coupon debentures redeemable after 9 years to its directors – Premature converted in to equity – Interest amount deemed to be received upon conversion of debentures in to equity shares in relevant assessment year – Revision order is justified . [ S. 2(24)(iv) 47(x),47(x)(a), 49(2A), 56(2),(id), 145 ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – Outstanding GST – Revision order is affirmed – Registration and provision for warranty – Revision is not justified . [ S. 14A ,37(1) 43B ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –
Charitable purpose -Objects of general public utility – Merely because the society’s participants included members from the private sector, it does not change the fundamental non-commercial nature of its activities- The society’s role as a facilitator for the hydrocarbon industry does not make its activities commercial- Revision order is quashed .[ S. 2(15), 11, 12 12AA ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –
The NFAP was already adjudicating the disallowance of transport charges u/s. 40(a)(ia), the PCIT had no jurisdiction to revise the order .[ S.40(a)(ia) ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –
Capital expenditure – The expenses in dispute were already capitalized – No prejudice to revenue – Revision order is quashed .[ S.37(1) ]

S.263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Short term capital loss – Section 263 cannot be used just because the PCIT holds a different view – No finding of lack of enquiry or perversity in AO’s conclusion- Reaffirmed that revisional jurisdiction cannot substitute AO’s discretion where AO acted judiciously.[ S. 143(3) ]

S. 263: Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Since all necessary verification and examination of documents in reasonable manner was done, the assessment order cannot be called erroneous and prejudicial within the meaning of s. 263, Expln. 2- Revision order is set aside . [ S. 143(3) , 147 , 148 ]

S. 251: Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Powers – CIT(A) did not give opportunity to assessee for hearing – Held, CIT(A) does not have power to dismiss appeal summarily without going on merits – matter back to NFAC for de novo consideration. [ S. 250, 251(1)(a) , 251(2) ]

S. 251: Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Powers – CIT (A) has wide powers akin to reassessment authority and must ensure thorough adjudication while deleting additions made by AO- Matter remanded back to AO to conduct fresh enquiries .[ S. 250 ]