S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Business of road infrastructure and development-AO allowed the claim made under section 80IA after detailed scrutiny-Revision of assessment order on the ground that the assessee is only a work contractor-Unjustified-Rule of consistency is followed. [S.80IA, 260A]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-Order of PCIT quashing the revision order is affirmed. [S. 40A(3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Expenditure on scientific research-Form 3CL filed but delay in intimation-Commissioner passed the revision order-Order of Tribunal quashing the Revision order is affirmed. [S. 35(2AB), 260A, Form No. 3CL]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Cash credits-Share capital and share premium-Record-shall include and shall be deemed always to have been included all records relating to any proceedings under this Act available at the time of examination by the Ld. Pr. CIT or Commissioner-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed by High Court.[[S. 68, 153A, 260A]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash credits-Opting VSV Scheme is closure of disputes-Revision order is bad in law reopened by issuing notice under section 263 for revising assessment order-[S. 68, 260A, Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, S.4]

S. 260A: Appeal-High Court-Delay of 2139 days-Absence of sufficient cause-Delay is cannot be condoned.

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Limitation of six months-Ex-parte hearing by ITAT and recalling Ex-parte orders-Time limit of 6 months not to apply-Order of Tribunal is set aside. [S. 253(3), ITAT R. 1963, 24, Art. 226]

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Losses in speculation business-Tribunal quashing the order of Revision-Documents placed before the Tribunal is not placed before the Commissioner-Matter remanded to the file of the Commissioner. [S. 73(1) 263]

S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Conditions-Jurisdiction-Rejection of application-Order of rejection is valid-Court can only ensure proper implementation of law by statutory authority-Not duty of court to legislate or issue any circular or notification.[S.119(2)(b) Art. 226]

S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Conditions-Retrospective amendment made by the Finance Bill, 2021-Pending applications-last date for filing of application in Section 245C(5) should be read as 31-03-2021 instead of 01-02-2021 and consequently the last date mentioned in the circular should also be read as 31-03-2021 and thus, the pending applications between 01-02-2021 to 31-03-2021 and as on 31-03-2021 should be deemed as pending applications for purposes of consideration by Interim Board-Court cannot substitute its opinion to abolition of Settlement Commission. [S. 245A, 245C (5), 245D(11), Art. 226]