Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Principal Commissioner was justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 on the ground that deduction under section 10A ought to have been computed after setting off business losses and brought forward losses.
Analysis: The assessment had accepted the assessee's claim of deduction under section 10A. The dispute turned on the stage at which the deduction is to be allowed and whether the Assessing Officer's view could be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner preferred a different method of computation. The binding legal position applied was that deduction under section 10A is to be allowed at the stage of computing the gross total income of the eligible undertaking, and not at the stage of computation under Chapter VI; accordingly, the Revenue's proposed set-off approach could not render the assessment order erroneous for purposes of section 263.
Conclusion: The invocation of section 263 was not justified, and the revisional order was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the Assessing Officer adopts a legally sustainable view on the stage of allowance of section 10A deduction, the assessment order cannot be revised under section 263 merely because the Principal Commissioner considers a different computation method preferable.