https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360599 Revisional interference under section 263 of the Income-tax Act is permissible only when the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue; on the facts, that threshold was not met because the assessee had not received the larger amount reflected in the later sale deed, so revision was unjustified. Capital gains could not be fastened on the assessee for the entire stated sale consideration where the record showed that only the originally agreed amount was received by her and the balance was received by the confirming party. The larger consideration could not be taxed in the assessee's hands, and any tax consequence on the balance lay in the hands of the recipient. en-us Wed, 11 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 May 2018 15:26:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360599 Revisional interference under section 263 of the Income-tax Act is permissible only when the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue; on the facts, that threshold was not met because the assessee had not received the larger amount reflected in the later sale deed, so revision was unjustified. Capital gains could not be fastened on the assessee for the entire stated sale consideration where the record showed that only the originally agreed amount was received by her and the balance was received by the confirming party. The larger consideration could not be taxed in the assessee's hands, and any tax consequence on the balance lay in the hands of the recipient. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 11 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360599