https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372933 Section 263 could not be used to treat an assessment order as erroneous merely because the Principal Commissioner disagreed with the brought-forward loss computation, where the Assessing Officer had passed the final order in conformity with DRP directions and had only given effect to year-specific directions. The attempt to indirectly revise the loss already determined for an earlier year was beyond jurisdiction, because that concluded assessment had not been disturbed in its own order. Parallel reassessment proceedings on the same issue, already sub judice, further supported unsustainability of the revision. The revisional order was therefore held unsustainable and the assessment was restored. en-us Wed, 19 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 31 Dec 2018 13:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372933 Section 263 could not be used to treat an assessment order as erroneous merely because the Principal Commissioner disagreed with the brought-forward loss computation, where the Assessing Officer had passed the final order in conformity with DRP directions and had only given effect to year-specific directions. The attempt to indirectly revise the loss already determined for an earlier year was beyond jurisdiction, because that concluded assessment had not been disturbed in its own order. Parallel reassessment proceedings on the same issue, already sub judice, further supported unsustainability of the revision. The revisional order was therefore held unsustainable and the assessment was restored. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 19 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372933