https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16884 The dominant issue was whether the assessment order granting weighted deduction under s.35B for commission/brokerage had merged with the first appellate order so as to bar revision under s.263. The HC held that merger operates only to the extent of matters actually considered in appeal; where the s.35B allowability issue was not the subject-matter before the first appellate authority, the Commissioner retained revisional jurisdiction. Since the record showed the assessing authority allowed the claim mechanically without enquiring under which s.35B(1)(b) sub-clause it fell, the order was prima facie erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue, justifying s.263 action. Tribunal's view was set aside; merits were left open for Tribunal/assessing authority to decide. en-us Mon, 08 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Dec 2025 12:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16884 The dominant issue was whether the assessment order granting weighted deduction under s.35B for commission/brokerage had merged with the first appellate order so as to bar revision under s.263. The HC held that merger operates only to the extent of matters actually considered in appeal; where the s.35B allowability issue was not the subject-matter before the first appellate authority, the Commissioner retained revisional jurisdiction. Since the record showed the assessing authority allowed the claim mechanically without enquiring under which s.35B(1)(b) sub-clause it fell, the order was prima facie erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue, justifying s.263 action. Tribunal's view was set aside; merits were left open for Tribunal/assessing authority to decide. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 08 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16884