https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119223 Revision under section 263 could not be sustained where the assessment had already examined the share-loss claim on the material before it, and the Commissioner relied mainly on alleged defects in Companies Act formalities. The Tribunal treated the capital-increase and return-of-allotment requirements as procedural, noting that later filing of forms and payment of additional fees regularised the defect and did not render the share transactions non-existent or invalid. It applied the settled test that revision lies only if the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, and that a mere possibility of deeper enquiry is insufficient. The revisional order was therefore unsustainable. en-us Fri, 05 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:40:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119223 Revision under section 263 could not be sustained where the assessment had already examined the share-loss claim on the material before it, and the Commissioner relied mainly on alleged defects in Companies Act formalities. The Tribunal treated the capital-increase and return-of-allotment requirements as procedural, noting that later filing of forms and payment of additional fees regularised the defect and did not render the share transactions non-existent or invalid. It applied the settled test that revision lies only if the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, and that a mere possibility of deeper enquiry is insufficient. The revisional order was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 05 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119223