S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Nature and source of deposits examined during assessment proceedings-Order cannot be held as erroneous-Order is set aside [S. 143 (3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Valuation of flats purchased on the basis of registered valuer-Failure to refer to District valuation Officer-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 55A, 56(2)(vii)(b), 143 (3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny-Opportunity of being heard-Violation of principle of natural justice-Order was quashed-The prayer of departmental representative to remand the case to the file of the PCIT was rejected. [S. 143(3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Surrender of capital gains in revised return-Failure to levy penalty–Explanation 2 to section 263 was not referred-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 139(5), 143(3), 271(1)(c)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Jurisdictional issue of reassessment can be challenged in an appeal against revision proceedings-Appeal-Appellate Tribunal-Power-Revision order was quashed. [S. 143(3), 147, 253, 254(1)]

S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal-Stay-Stay is granted subject to providing a reasonable security for an amount of 20 % of the disputed demand to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. [S. 220(6)]

S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal-Stay-Interim stay order by High Court-Revenue Authorities have taken a conscious decision not to recover the outstanding amount-Stay petition is dismissed as infructuous. [S. 220(6)]

S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal-Stay-Demand on account of ALP adjustment for assignment of call or put options vested by assessee to its Mauritius based group concern, inasmuch as it put said group concern at an undue advantage of buying Vodafone India shares at a price much below market rate without any corresponding benefit to assessee-Stay granted on impugned tax demand subject to deposit of 20 per cent tax and furnishing of corporate guarantee from AE. [S. 220]

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-The Tribunal has consciously adjudicated a case instead of referring it to a special bench as desired by the assessee, it is not open to him to try achieving the same under the garb of 254(2) proceedings-Miscellaneous application is rejected.

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Power-Additional evidence-Non-consideration of additional evidence placed on record would cause prejudice to assessee-Commissioner (Appeals) to admit additional evidence. [R. 46A, ITAT R, 29]