The dominant issue was whether revision under s.263 could be...

The dominant issue was whether revision under s.263 could be sustained on the premise that carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation and business losses was wrongly allowed due to non-fulfilment of the three-year existence condition in s.72A(2). The court held that s.72A(4), applicable to a demerger, contains no such condition, and the record showed the authority was aware of the assessee's reliance on this distinction. As the revisional authority neither identified a concrete error in the assessment nor articulated any specific doubt despite available scheme orders, the s.263 direction was held to be a roving enquiry and invalid; questions were answered in favour of the assessee. - HC

---