Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that there was no infirmity in the calculations made by the AO while computing the deductions and hence the view of the Commissioner that the AO committed an error while passing the respective assessment orders which resulted in loss of revenue prejudicial to interests of the Revenue could not be sustained. Consequently, the direction in the order of the Commissioner to the AO to compute deduction under S. 80HHC was without any basis. The Commissioner had erred in invoking the revisional powers under S. 263 in the facts of the present cases. Followed Malabar Industrial Co . Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) ( AY. 1998-99, 2003-04)
CIT v .Madura Coats Ltd. (2019) 106 CCH 0431 / (2020)422 ITR 390 (Mad)(HC)
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –Export business- Every loss of revenue as a consequence often order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue- Revision is held to be not valid . [ S.80HHC ]