https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371360 HC held that the Pr.CIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under s.263 regarding exemption claimed u/s 54F on four residential units. The AO, in reassessment, had consciously examined the claim and adopted a plausible view granting deduction u/s 54F instead of s.54, evidencing due application of mind. As the substantive issue was already pending before the CIT(A), exercise of revisional power u/s 263 was statutorily barred. Further, even if the reassessment order were assumed erroneous, it was not prejudicial to the Revenue; the twin conditions for s.263 were unmet. The HC set aside the s.263 order and the ITAT's confirmation, allowing the assessee's appeal. en-us Wed, 14 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Dec 2025 15:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371360 HC held that the Pr.CIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under s.263 regarding exemption claimed u/s 54F on four residential units. The AO, in reassessment, had consciously examined the claim and adopted a plausible view granting deduction u/s 54F instead of s.54, evidencing due application of mind. As the substantive issue was already pending before the CIT(A), exercise of revisional power u/s 263 was statutorily barred. Further, even if the reassessment order were assumed erroneous, it was not prejudicial to the Revenue; the twin conditions for s.263 were unmet. The HC set aside the s.263 order and the ITAT's confirmation, allowing the assessee's appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 14 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371360