https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332347 The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Commissioner's decision to reject the revision petition due to unexplained delay and ruling that the revision under section 264 was not maintainable against the intimation under section 143(1). Additionally, the court found that the petitioner was not entitled to a refund of the excess tax paid without following the appropriate statutory procedures for rectification, revision, or appeal. en-us Wed, 07 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Sep 2016 20:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332347 The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Commissioner's decision to reject the revision petition due to unexplained delay and ruling that the revision under section 264 was not maintainable against the intimation under section 143(1). Additionally, the court found that the petitioner was not entitled to a refund of the excess tax paid without following the appropriate statutory procedures for rectification, revision, or appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 07 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332347