https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331696 The Tribunal upheld the Principal Commissioner's assumption of jurisdiction under sec.263 due to the Assessing Officer's failure to examine the scientific basis of the provision for warranty expenditure, as required by legal guidelines. The Tribunal found that the AO did not consider all possible views and accepted the provision without proper scrutiny, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and affirming the decision for a fresh assessment. en-us Wed, 20 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Nov 2016 14:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331696 The Tribunal upheld the Principal Commissioner's assumption of jurisdiction under sec.263 due to the Assessing Officer's failure to examine the scientific basis of the provision for warranty expenditure, as required by legal guidelines. The Tribunal found that the AO did not consider all possible views and accepted the provision without proper scrutiny, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and affirming the decision for a fresh assessment. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 20 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331696