S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Closing stock-Limited scrutiny–What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly-PCIT in the garb of his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 cannot be permitted to traverse beyond the jurisdiction that was vested with the AO while framing the assessment [S. 115JB, 142(1), 143(3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limitation–Cash credits–Share capital–No material was placed during assessment proceedings to prove genuineness of share capital issued at premium-Revision order is held to be valid. [S. 143(3), 153(1)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-No change in tax liability–Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 45(2), 48, 50C, 54EC]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Interest received by head office is chargeable to tax or not is a debatable issue-Revision cannot be initiated on the basis of retrospective amendment as the AO has to proceed on the basis of law prevailing as on the date of assessments-Revision is held to be not valid-DTAA-India-USA. [S. 9(1)(v)(c), Art.14(6)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-The AO failed to make any inquiry on vital aspects while admitting the claim of the assessee and allowing the claim summarily-Revision is held to be justified-The AO could not expand the scope of inquiry while passing the order under s.143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. [S. 54B, 143(3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Non-resident–Foreign assignment allowance–Revision is held to be bad in law-AO enquire into the issue of taxability of foreign assignment allowance but had consciously applied his mind to the facts made available before him and adopted the view permissible in law. [S. 5(2), 9(ii)]

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)–Procedure–Additional evidence-Remand–Evidence collected during appellate proceedings–Opportunity was not given to the AO-Matter set aside to the file of AO. [S. 246A, R. 46A]

S. 147 : Reassessment–Within four years-Change of opinion-Capital gains on sale of agricultural land-No failure to disclose material facts-Approval granted was without application of mind – Reassessment is held to be bad in law. [S. 2(IA), 10(1), 115JB, 148, 151]

S. 147 : Reassessment–With in four years-Failure to deduct tax at source–Merely on the doubt about applicability of tax deducted at source, reassessment is held to be not valid. [S. 40(a)(ia), 148]

S. 124 : Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer-Jurisdiction of AO cannot be called in question by assessee after expiry of one month from date of which he was served with notice u/s. 142(1) or after completion of assessment, which was to be earlier. [S. 142(1)]