Held that the Assessing Officer had allowed the set-off of loss per the assessee’s return of income, which is  an error. No details were filed by either party with respect to the current position of the pending litigation and the resultant figure of income after finally giving effect to the orders of the appellate authority. The order of the Assessing Officer is  erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. As regards lease hold land since necessary adjustment had already been made in the books of account at the end of the year under appeal, no asset remained in the project. Under these circumstances, the current year’s interest income could not be reduced from the cost of asset of the project. The direction given by the Principal Commissioner is contrary to the facts of the case. Revision is not valid. (AY. 2020-21)