https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253336 The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) overstepped by invoking Section 263 solely based on audit objections without proper analysis. The Assessing Officer's (AO) decision to allow the Brand Building Expenses as Revenue Expenditure and Preliminary Expenses deduction under Section 35D was considered valid as he had applied due diligence. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT cannot substitute his opinion for a possible view taken by the AO. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and allowed the assessee's appeal. en-us Tue, 09 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Nov 2014 12:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253336 The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) overstepped by invoking Section 263 solely based on audit objections without proper analysis. The Assessing Officer's (AO) decision to allow the Brand Building Expenses as Revenue Expenditure and Preliminary Expenses deduction under Section 35D was considered valid as he had applied due diligence. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT cannot substitute his opinion for a possible view taken by the AO. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and allowed the assessee's appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 09 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253336