https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281146 Revision under section 263 requires the Commissioner to make at least minimum enquiry and show that the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. On year-end provisions, no revision was sustainable because TDS was deducted when bills were received, tax was paid before the return due date, and the amended section 40(a)(ia) provisory scheme, treated as curative and retrospective, protected the claim. On the effluent treatment plant depreciation issue, revision was upheld because the invoice dates raised a factual question about whether the assets had been put to use for the prescribed period. Revision was also upheld on interest under section 244A, as the allowance was treated as an incorrect record-based grant. en-us Fri, 22 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Jun 2019 06:22:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281146 Revision under section 263 requires the Commissioner to make at least minimum enquiry and show that the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. On year-end provisions, no revision was sustainable because TDS was deducted when bills were received, tax was paid before the return due date, and the amended section 40(a)(ia) provisory scheme, treated as curative and retrospective, protected the claim. On the effluent treatment plant depreciation issue, revision was upheld because the invoice dates raised a factual question about whether the assets had been put to use for the prescribed period. Revision was also upheld on interest under section 244A, as the allowance was treated as an incorrect record-based grant. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 22 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281146