https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329810 The judgment clarified that for the Commissioner to revise an order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, it must be both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, with loss of tax falling within this scope. It emphasized that not every loss of revenue constitutes prejudice unless the decision is legally unsustainable. The judgment underscored the necessity for orders to meet both criteria of being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue to warrant revision, citing previous court decisions to support this interpretation. It also addressed the application of legal principles in evaluating fund utilization for tax exemption under Section 11, stressing the need for a comprehensive examination in cases of potential tax avoidance. en-us Tue, 05 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Jul 2016 12:14:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329810 The judgment clarified that for the Commissioner to revise an order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, it must be both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, with loss of tax falling within this scope. It emphasized that not every loss of revenue constitutes prejudice unless the decision is legally unsustainable. The judgment underscored the necessity for orders to meet both criteria of being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue to warrant revision, citing previous court decisions to support this interpretation. It also addressed the application of legal principles in evaluating fund utilization for tax exemption under Section 11, stressing the need for a comprehensive examination in cases of potential tax avoidance. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 05 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329810