https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63175 Section 263 revision is not justified merely because the Commissioner prefers a different view on the same material; the assessment must be shown to be erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. On the expenditure issue, society commission and cane development subsidy were treated as business expenditure and not confined to section 35C, so allowance under section 37(1) was not wrongly accepted. On the royalty arrangement issue, the facts showed that the other company provided capital, know-how, marketing effort and commercial risk, while the assessee contributed land and licence use; there was no material to treat the arrangement as sham or colourable. The revisional order was therefore unsustainable. en-us Mon, 26 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Jan 2011 12:22:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63175 Section 263 revision is not justified merely because the Commissioner prefers a different view on the same material; the assessment must be shown to be erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. On the expenditure issue, society commission and cane development subsidy were treated as business expenditure and not confined to section 35C, so allowance under section 37(1) was not wrongly accepted. On the royalty arrangement issue, the facts showed that the other company provided capital, know-how, marketing effort and commercial risk, while the assessee contributed land and licence use; there was no material to treat the arrangement as sham or colourable. The revisional order was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 26 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63175