S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Principle of natural justice-Application was rejected-Matter was not heard and disposed on the date hearing-Matter is set aside to decide the matter after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing. [Art. 226]

S. 264 :Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Capital gains-Intimation under section 143(1) is an order amenable to revision jurisdiction-Matter remanded to the Principle Commissioner to pass s fresh order on application of assessee.[S. 45, 48, 143(1), 264 Art. 226]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Method of accounting-Closing stock-Not recorded a specific finding that it was a case of no enquiry by Assessing Officer-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed.[S.145(3), 260A]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue- Cash credits-Share application money-Second revisionery order-Order of Tribunal setting aside second revisionery order is affirmed. [S. 68, 143(3), 260A]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Business expenditure-Assessing Officer has applied his mind-Order of revision set aside by the Tribunal is affirmed. [S. 37(1), 57, 143(3), 260A]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Bad debt-Provision for bad and doubtful debts-Schedule bank-Questions were asked in the course of assessment proceedings-Replies are filed-Revision is held to be not valid-No substantial question of law. [S.36(1)(viia), 260A]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Depreciation-Internal Audit party-Assets were not put to use-Assessment order is neither erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue-Order of Tribunal is affirmed-No substantial question. of law.[S.32, 260A]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Cost of improvement-Cost of acquisition-Paid to shareholders under Family Settlement-Relinquishment of rights-Encumbrance charges as cost of improvement-Revision order is affirmed-Review petition is dismissed. [45, 48, 50A, 55(1))b), Art. 136]

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Prosecution-Appeal against acquittal undr code of 1973-High Court has power or jurisdiction to condone delay in filing an application seeking leave to appeal against an acquittal or in entertaining an appeal against acquittal under Code of 1973 [S. 279, Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, 378, Limitation Act, 1963, S. 5, 24, Art. 14, 136, 226]

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Delay of 286 days-Order was passed by Prothonotary & Senior Master, rejecting revenue’s appeal for non-removal of office objections-All notice of motions were dismissed by High Court-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [Art 136]