S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash deposits during demonetisation period-Revision order is quashed.[S.68]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Surrendered income-No inquiry by Principal CIT to arrive at a contrary finding-Revision order is quashed.

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
The AO failed to make reference to transfer pricing officer for examining issue of specified domestic transactions-Also, allowed huge loss on commodity transactions without proper inquiries.[S. 43(5)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Assessee submitted Form 3CM and Form 3CLA-Claim cannot be rejected in absence of intimation to Department in Form 3CL-No lack of inquiry by the AO-Dismissed the order passed by the PCIT.[S. 35(2AB]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Difference in estimation yield in respect of Tomatoes-Set aside the assessment order-Reason to set-aside is erroneous-No prejudice caused to the interest of the revenue merely on difference in estimation.[S. 144]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Payment to director-AO enquired remuneration paid to directors and taking well-informed decision after considering submissions made by the Assessee and restrict payment to one director. Revision by Pr. CIT on ground payment to another director should also have been restricted, not justified.[S. 40(2)(b)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
-Requirement of reference to Transfer Pricing Officer-Return of income of assessee selected under “transfer pricing risk” parameter-Failure by AO to make reference or record satisfaction for not doing so-Instruction of Board not followed-Order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue-Revision justified —CBDT Instruction No. 3 Of 2016, Dated 10-3-2016 .[S. 92C, 144C, 119,263 Expl. 2(c)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Income from other sources-Receipt of consideration for shares in excess of fair market value-Share premium received from 100 per cent. holding company-Deeming provision cannot be applied-Order passed by AO accepting the returned income was not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue-Revision not sustainable .[S. 56(2)(viib), 68,]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Depreciation-Additional depreciation-Balance of additional depreciation w.r.t asset put to use in previous year can be claimed in the subsequent year-Revision order is quashed. [S. 32(1)(iia)]