https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211748 The court upheld the validity of the revisional jurisdiction exercised under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It found that the Assessing Officer had failed to properly apply his mind in allowing benefits under section 54F of the Act, leading to the cancellation of the order passed by the appellant. The court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction could be invoked for errors in considering relevant material, incorrect facts, or misapplication of the law, supporting the Commissioner's decision to direct a fresh inquiry into the share transactions. en-us Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211748 The court upheld the validity of the revisional jurisdiction exercised under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It found that the Assessing Officer had failed to properly apply his mind in allowing benefits under section 54F of the Act, leading to the cancellation of the order passed by the appellant. The court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction could be invoked for errors in considering relevant material, incorrect facts, or misapplication of the law, supporting the Commissioner's decision to direct a fresh inquiry into the share transactions. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211748