Assessee was an individual and proprietor of a proprietorship firm .  He filed his return of income which was processed under section 143(3) and an assessment order was passed making certain additions .  Commissioner invoked provisions of section 263 on ground that assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify loss on sale of shares claimed by assessee as business loss but Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 143(3) by bringing to tax only capital gains on development agreement entered into by assessee and disallowing interest on TDS . Tribunal held that during scrutiny assessment, Assessing Officer had required assessee to furnish details of loss on sale of shares as claimed by assessee and allowed such loss only after considering reply of assessee . Therefore mere non-mentioning of reasons for allowing claim, would not make assessment order erroneous and, thus, impugned invocation of revision under section 263 was unjustified and same was to be set aside .  Assessee was a partner in a partnership firm which was dissolved as all other partners retired and assessee took over business of firm as a proprietor . Since assessee continued business of firm as a successor-in-business in his individual capacity, unabsorbed depreciation of erstwhile firm was to be allowed to be carried forward and set off against his income of relevant assessment year in terms of provisions of section 170 . Assessee had sold a piece of land and showed a sale consideration of Rs. 3.56 crores .  Same was accepted and assessment was completed . Commissioner invoked provisions of section 263 on ground that SRO value of land was Rs. 3.99 crores  and difference of Rs. 43 lakhs  was to be brought to tax under section 50C. Assessee submitted that such difference was between 10 per cent and 15 per cent, provisions of section 50C should not be applied . Tribunal held that  section 50C did not make any discount in respect of difference between SRO value and sale consideration received by assessee  therefore, order of commissioner on application of section 50C was to be confirmed . Assessee claimed a short-term capital loss against sale of vehicle . Same was allowed . Commissioner invoked provisions of section 263 on ground that sale consideration received by assessee should have been reduced from block of assets and that loss could not be set off against capital gain of assessee .  Assessee contended that assessee had treated car as a separate asset and it was not part of any block of assets and, therefore, loss on sale of such car was claimed as short-term capital loss which could be set-off against long-term capital gains . However, he fairly admitted that loss should have been debited to profit & loss account but in computation of income assessee had claimed it as short-term capital loss .  He also pointed out that he had not set-off loss against long-term capital gains . Tribunal held that  since there was a mistake in computation of income by assessee in relation to loss on sale of car, Assessing Officer was to be directed to reconsider issue in accordance with law .  (AY. 2011-12 ,  2012 -13 )