https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373846 The appeal was filed against the PCIT's order under section 263 of the IT Act for the assessment year 2014-15. The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the notice, arguing it was based on suspicion. The AO added alleged fictitious capital gains to the assessee's income, which was contested. The PCIT's revision was deemed unjustified as substantial amounts were already added by the AO, and no evidence of commission payments was found. The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the need for both error and prejudice to revenue for a valid revision under section 263. en-us Thu, 17 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Jan 2019 09:44:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373846 The appeal was filed against the PCIT's order under section 263 of the IT Act for the assessment year 2014-15. The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the notice, arguing it was based on suspicion. The AO added alleged fictitious capital gains to the assessee's income, which was contested. The PCIT's revision was deemed unjustified as substantial amounts were already added by the AO, and no evidence of commission payments was found. The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the need for both error and prejudice to revenue for a valid revision under section 263. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 17 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373846