https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343372 The High Court analyzed the interpretation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that the Commissioner's jurisdiction requires the Assessing Officer's order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The Court clarified that not every mistake warrants revision under Section 263, highlighting the significance of applying principles of natural justice and proper law. Additionally, the Court determined that an order can be prejudicial if it results in a lawful loss of tax due to the Assessing Officer's error. The judgment favored the appellant by setting aside the Tribunal's decision and confirming the Commissioner's order under Section 263. en-us Wed, 03 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 May 2017 07:04:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343372 The High Court analyzed the interpretation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that the Commissioner's jurisdiction requires the Assessing Officer's order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The Court clarified that not every mistake warrants revision under Section 263, highlighting the significance of applying principles of natural justice and proper law. Additionally, the Court determined that an order can be prejudicial if it results in a lawful loss of tax due to the Assessing Officer's error. The judgment favored the appellant by setting aside the Tribunal's decision and confirming the Commissioner's order under Section 263. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 03 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343372