https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273244 The High Court held that the prohibition under Section 264(4)(c) of the Income Tax Act applied, preventing the revision from being entertained due to the pendency of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, despite different parties filing the appeal and revision. The Court intervened using its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to reconsider the deduction claim for interest paid on amounts borrowed for the defunct business. The previous order was quashed, ensuring the petitioner's right to seek relief through the statutory process. en-us Wed, 06 Dec 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:06:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273244 The High Court held that the prohibition under Section 264(4)(c) of the Income Tax Act applied, preventing the revision from being entertained due to the pendency of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, despite different parties filing the appeal and revision. The Court intervened using its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to reconsider the deduction claim for interest paid on amounts borrowed for the defunct business. The previous order was quashed, ensuring the petitioner's right to seek relief through the statutory process. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 Dec 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273244