https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348654 The HC held that revision under section 263 could not be sustained where the Assessing Officer had examined the capital gains and property-income treatment on scrutiny and adopted one of the legally permissible views. The Tribunal was in finding that the Commissioner's revisionary assumption rested on an incorrect reading of the record and that the assessment order was not shown to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. A mere possibility of a different view was insufficient to justify revision, and no perversity or legal error was found in the Tribunal's conclusion. en-us Mon, 18 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348654 The HC held that revision under section 263 could not be sustained where the Assessing Officer had examined the capital gains and property-income treatment on scrutiny and adopted one of the legally permissible views. The Tribunal was in finding that the Commissioner's revisionary assumption rested on an incorrect reading of the record and that the assessment order was not shown to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. A mere possibility of a different view was insufficient to justify revision, and no perversity or legal error was found in the Tribunal's conclusion. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 18 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348654