https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206837 HC held for the assessee, finding the principle of res judicata and consistency barred revisional interference under s.263 on fundamental aspects of recurring transactions involving UTI units. Revenue failed to show that earlier assessments or views were challenged or any special circumstances justifying deviation; treating the price differential as cost to retain legal ownership amounted to recharacterizing transactions contrary to previously accepted positions. Consequently, the CIT's revisional exercise was inappropriate and the capital loss allowance stands in favor of the assessee. en-us Tue, 01 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Aug 2025 12:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206837 HC held for the assessee, finding the principle of res judicata and consistency barred revisional interference under s.263 on fundamental aspects of recurring transactions involving UTI units. Revenue failed to show that earlier assessments or views were challenged or any special circumstances justifying deviation; treating the price differential as cost to retain legal ownership amounted to recharacterizing transactions contrary to previously accepted positions. Consequently, the CIT's revisional exercise was inappropriate and the capital loss allowance stands in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 01 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206837