https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219055 HC held that the Commissioner's exercise of revisionary power under s.263 was unjustified because the Assessing Officer had made specific inquiries and received explanations and documents; the lack of detailed discussion did not show absence of application of mind. The one-time regulatory fee, bank guarantee charges, and stamp duty were properly treated as revenue expenditures. CIT(A) failed to demonstrate the original assessment was unsupportable in law. The question of law was decided for the assessee and against the Revenue, and the appeal was dismissed. en-us Tue, 20 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Sep 2025 15:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219055 HC held that the Commissioner's exercise of revisionary power under s.263 was unjustified because the Assessing Officer had made specific inquiries and received explanations and documents; the lack of detailed discussion did not show absence of application of mind. The one-time regulatory fee, bank guarantee charges, and stamp duty were properly treated as revenue expenditures. CIT(A) failed to demonstrate the original assessment was unsupportable in law. The question of law was decided for the assessee and against the Revenue, and the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 20 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219055