https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171286 Income finally assessed substantively in the hands of the main trust and settled under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme could not be assessed again protectively in the hands of beneficiary trusts, because the same income cannot be taxed twice and protective assessments fall away once the substantive assessment is concluded. The Assessing Officer had taken a legally permissible view in excluding duplicated income, so the Commissioner could not invoke section 263 merely because another view was possible; the order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue. Refund arising from exclusion of the duplicated income carried interest, as it followed consequential appellate and settlement relief rather than annulment of the assessment. en-us Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 10 Dec 2023 18:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171286 Income finally assessed substantively in the hands of the main trust and settled under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme could not be assessed again protectively in the hands of beneficiary trusts, because the same income cannot be taxed twice and protective assessments fall away once the substantive assessment is concluded. The Assessing Officer had taken a legally permissible view in excluding duplicated income, so the Commissioner could not invoke section 263 merely because another view was possible; the order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue. Refund arising from exclusion of the duplicated income carried interest, as it followed consequential appellate and settlement relief rather than annulment of the assessment. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171286