https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258957 Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be exercised where the assessment was completed after inquiry, the Assessing Officer followed section 144A directions, and the taxability issue was debatable; the revision was therefore unwarranted. Compensation received under a consent decree for breach of an oral agreement to purchase immovable property was not capital gains, because an agreement to sell does not by itself create any interest in property and the receipt was only in substitution of the failed claim for specific performance. The matter was held to fall within Abbasbhoy A. Dehgamwalla rather than Vijay Flexible Containers, since no transferable capital asset was involved. en-us Thu, 09 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258957 Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be exercised where the assessment was completed after inquiry, the Assessing Officer followed section 144A directions, and the taxability issue was debatable; the revision was therefore unwarranted. Compensation received under a consent decree for breach of an oral agreement to purchase immovable property was not capital gains, because an agreement to sell does not by itself create any interest in property and the receipt was only in substitution of the failed claim for specific performance. The matter was held to fall within Abbasbhoy A. Dehgamwalla rather than Vijay Flexible Containers, since no transferable capital asset was involved. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 09 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258957