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)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Failure to verify wages expenditure-Failure to deduct tax at on payments-Casual labour accepted without verification-Assessing Officer accepted certificates filed by assessee without recording reasons-Revision is justified. [S. 37(1), 40 (a) (ia)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Failure of Assessing Officer to inquire loss on disposal of assets/expenditure-Assessing Officer duty bound to disallow expenditure which is not of revenue expenditure in P & L account-Revision is justified.[S. 37(1)]

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Assessing officer made enquiries-Contention of the PCIT that examination not done incorrect-Contention that A.O. had only one day to pass order invalid-Revision not Justified.[S. 143(2)]