https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276001 The tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the CIT's order due to the incorrect application of section 263 and the treatment of Warranty Claim expenses as a contingent liability under section 115JA. The tribunal found that the CIT erred in exercising revisional powers under section 263 as the statutory requirements were not met, leading to the unsustainable nature of the order. The appellant successfully argued against the CIT's decision, citing legal precedents and ultimately prevailing in the case. en-us Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Oct 2018 10:00:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276001 The tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the CIT's order due to the incorrect application of section 263 and the treatment of Warranty Claim expenses as a contingent liability under section 115JA. The tribunal found that the CIT erred in exercising revisional powers under section 263 as the statutory requirements were not met, leading to the unsustainable nature of the order. The appellant successfully argued against the CIT's decision, citing legal precedents and ultimately prevailing in the case. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276001