Revision order of CIT was affirmed by the Tribunal. On appeal, High Court held the Tribunal was right in sustaining the order of revision passed by the Commissioner as the shares were undervalued. (AY.2003-04)
S. Palaniappan v. CIT (2023) 452 ITR 91 (Mad.)(HC) S. Manickavasagam v. ITO (2023) 452 ITR 91 (Mad.) (HC) Editorial : S. Manickavasagam v. ITO (2010) 3 ITR 304 (Chennai)(Trib.), affirmed.
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Loss on account of sale of shares-Shares were undervalued-Revision is justified. [S. 263(3)]