https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204957 The court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's revision application under Section 264(4)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to the petitioner already having filed an appeal against the order. Despite an error in the reasoning for rejection based on limitation, the court emphasized that seeking revision after an appeal had been dismissed is impermissible under the Act. The judgment referenced the KADRI MILLS (COIMBATORE) LTD. case and concluded that the petitioner could not revise an order that had already been appealed, highlighting the restrictions imposed by Section 264(4)(c) on revising orders subject to appeal. en-us Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204957 The court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's revision application under Section 264(4)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to the petitioner already having filed an appeal against the order. Despite an error in the reasoning for rejection based on limitation, the court emphasized that seeking revision after an appeal had been dismissed is impermissible under the Act. The judgment referenced the KADRI MILLS (COIMBATORE) LTD. case and concluded that the petitioner could not revise an order that had already been appealed, highlighting the restrictions imposed by Section 264(4)(c) on revising orders subject to appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204957