S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Assessing Officer framing assessment after considering all details-Revision order not mentioning how Assessing Officer’s order erroneous and prejudicial to interests of Revenue-Revision is not valid [S. 143(3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Issues enquired by Assessing Officer-Principal Commissioner without conducting independent inquiry directing the Assessing Officer to carry out detailed inquiries-Revision order was quashed. [S. 143(3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Assessing Officer framing assessment after considering all details-Claim under section 57 was allowed in previous and latter years-Commissioner ought to have conducted independent enquiries on not being satisfied-Revision is not valid [S. 57]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Assessing Officer Framing Assessment After Considering All Details And Information Submitted By Assessee-Assessee’s claim of increase in valuation of stock properly explained-Commissioner ought to have conducted enquiries himself on not being satisfied-Revision is not valid. [S. 143(3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited Scrutiny-Labour and wages payable-Assumption of jurisdiction well within limited scrutiny-Revision is justified. [S. 143(3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Duty entitlement Passbook (DEPB)-Book profit-Provision made for doubtful debt and corporate Debt restructuring-Failure to deduct tax at source-Short deduction of TDS-Revision was quashed-Other issues Revision was held to be valid. [S.37, 40(a)(ia)), 115JB, 145]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Interest-loan processing fees are not in respect of money borrowed or debt incurred, such loan processing fees cannot qualify as “interest” as defined u/s 2(28A) of the Act-Revision is not valid [S. 2(28A)) 40(a)(ia)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny-Revision order is bad in law. [S. 14A]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Unaccounted money-Assessee receiving money and repaying it subsequently-Inadequate inquiry-Revision order is held to be not valid-Limitation period from original date of assessment and not from the date of reassessment-Revision time barred.[S. 143(3), 147]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Valuation of stock-Method of accounting-Difference glaring in current assets and current liabilities as shown in balance sheet and in cash flow statement-Revision order was justified.[S.143(3), 145]