https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264509 Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 requires the assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Where the Assessing Officer made specific enquiries into loss on sale of Government securities, treated securities held as current investments and sold before maturity as stock-in-trade, and accepted the resulting business loss, a different revisional view did not justify revision. Further disallowance under section 14A was not warranted where exempt-income investments were funded from interest-free funds and Rule 8D did not apply retrospectively for the relevant year. The revisional order was quashed. en-us Mon, 21 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Sep 2015 00:15:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264509 Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 requires the assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Where the Assessing Officer made specific enquiries into loss on sale of Government securities, treated securities held as current investments and sold before maturity as stock-in-trade, and accepted the resulting business loss, a different revisional view did not justify revision. Further disallowance under section 14A was not warranted where exempt-income investments were funded from interest-free funds and Rule 8D did not apply retrospectively for the relevant year. The revisional order was quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 21 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264509