https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346472 Bombay HC held the Commissioner's exercise of revisional jurisdiction under s.263 was proper: the Assessing Officer had not examined the claim for deduction under s.80HHC and thus the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Although the SC in Max India recognized that s.263 will not be attracted where the AO adopts a view taken by other authorities, the AO here abdicated responsibility and lacked contemporaneous tribunal precedent. Decision for appellant-revenue; against respondent-assessee. en-us Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Aug 2025 17:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346472 Bombay HC held the Commissioner's exercise of revisional jurisdiction under s.263 was proper: the Assessing Officer had not examined the claim for deduction under s.80HHC and thus the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Although the SC in Max India recognized that s.263 will not be attracted where the AO adopts a view taken by other authorities, the AO here abdicated responsibility and lacked contemporaneous tribunal precedent. Decision for appellant-revenue; against respondent-assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346472