https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202384 The HC set aside the Commissioner's revision order under s.263, holding the Commissioner failed to demonstrate the assessment was both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue. Although the AO's file showed limited application of mind and no specific queries on four issues, the Commissioner did not explain how those omissions rendered the order erroneous or prejudicial. Points on transit insurance, s.80HHC deduction and a one-time Rs.1.61 crore entry were examined and found not to justify s.263 interference. Decision: in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. en-us Tue, 14 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jul 2026 12:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202384 The HC set aside the Commissioner's revision order under s.263, holding the Commissioner failed to demonstrate the assessment was both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue. Although the AO's file showed limited application of mind and no specific queries on four issues, the Commissioner did not explain how those omissions rendered the order erroneous or prejudicial. Points on transit insurance, s.80HHC deduction and a one-time Rs.1.61 crore entry were examined and found not to justify s.263 interference. Decision: in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 14 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202384