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
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
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
