S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Principal commissioner is not justified in initiating revision proceedings when proceedings have already declared under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. [Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, S. 8]

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-commissioner taking view explanation offered by the assessee to assessing officer not satisfactory and assessing officer had failed to conduct further enquiries, revision based on audit objection is invalid. [S. 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C, 69D, 115BBE]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-AO allowed deduction u/s 35(2AB) after verifying all the necessary documents and certificates-Neither the AO nor the PCIT has power to question the approval granted by the DSIR. [S. 35(2AB), 143(3)]

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-No detailed inquiry or verification by PCIT-Failure to point out error in assessment order-Order is quashed. [S.35(2AB), 143(3)]

S.263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Since the revisionary order was passed within five days from the date of issuance of show cause notice, proper and effective opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee matter restored back to PCIT to pass fresh revisionary order after giving proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.[S.143(3)]

S.263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny assessment the PCIT can examine the only issue which was before the Assessing Officer during the course of scrutiny assessment and not any other issue which has not been subject matter of the Assessing Officer for the assessment in a limited scrutiny assessment. [S.143(3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Amounts not deductible-Since the provisions of section 40(a)(iib) does not contemplate tax and VAT does not fall within the ambit of “fee” or “charge”, section 40(a)(iib) cannot be attracted in respect of expenditure by way of VAT. Accordingly, the order of the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) allowing assessee’s claim for deduction of expenditure by way of VAT cannot be regarded as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in terms of section 263. [S. 40(a)(iib), 143(3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Survey-Additional income-Revision order is set aside.[S.143(3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Educational Institution –Revision order is set aside. [S. 10(23C)(iiiad) 12A, 12AA, 143(3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Search and seizure-Penalty-Not recording satisfaction-Concealment penalty-Principal Commissioner cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction qua proceedings before an Appellate Authority-Revision is invalid.[S. 132,153A, 271(1)(c)]