S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Charitable purpose-Objects of general public utility-Merely because the society’s participants included members from the private sector, it does not change the fundamental non-commercial nature of its activities-The society’s role as a facilitator for the hydrocarbon industry does not make its activities commercial-Revision order is quashed.[S. 2(15), 11, 12 12AA]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
The NFAP was already adjudicating the disallowance of transport charges u/s. 40(a)(ia), the PCIT had no jurisdiction to revise the order.[S.40(a)(ia)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Capital expenditure-The expenses in dispute were already capitalized-No prejudice to revenue-Revision order is quashed.[S.37(1)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Short term capital loss-Section 263 cannot be used just because the PCIT holds a different view-No finding of lack of enquiry or perversity in AO’s conclusion-Reaffirmed that revisional jurisdiction cannot substitute AO’s discretion where AO acted judiciously.[S. 143(3)]

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Since all necessary verification and examination of documents in reasonable manner was done, the assessment order cannot be called erroneous and prejudicial within the meaning of s. 263, Expln. 2-Revision order is set aside. [S. 143(3), 147, 148]

S. 251: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-CIT(A) did not give opportunity to assessee for hearing-Held, CIT(A) does not have power to dismiss appeal summarily without going on merits-matter back to NFAC for de novo consideration. [S. 250, 251(1)(a), 251(2)]

S. 251: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-CIT (A) has wide powers akin to reassessment authority and must ensure thorough adjudication while deleting additions made by AO-Matter remanded back to AO to conduct fresh enquiries.[S. 250]

S. 244A : Refunds-Interest on refunds-Refund to be adjusted first from the outstanding interest and thereafter the principal amount.

S.199: Deduction of tax at source-Credit for tax deducted-Sale of jointly owned immovable property-The property was jointly owned, and the capital gain was shared equally between the spouses cannot be the sole reason for disallowing the TDS credit.

S. 199: Deduction of tax at source-Credit for tax deducted-The contract was terminated, the income did not accrue, and the advance was refunded-Entitled to claim a refund of the TDS deducted on the advance paid by the party. [R. 37BA(3), Art. 265]