https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383626 The judgment addressed challenges to the Principal CIT's jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, the correctness of the Assessing Officer's order under section 143(3)/153A, and the disallowance under Rule 8D. It emphasized the need for the Assessing Officer's order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue for revisional jurisdiction to be valid. The court found the Assessing Officer's order non-prejudicial for Rule 8D(2)(i) and (ii) but erroneous and prejudicial for Rule 8D(2)(iii), ultimately allowing the assessee's appeal. en-us Wed, 24 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Jul 2019 14:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383626 The judgment addressed challenges to the Principal CIT's jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, the correctness of the Assessing Officer's order under section 143(3)/153A, and the disallowance under Rule 8D. It emphasized the need for the Assessing Officer's order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue for revisional jurisdiction to be valid. The court found the Assessing Officer's order non-prejudicial for Rule 8D(2)(i) and (ii) but erroneous and prejudicial for Rule 8D(2)(iii), ultimately allowing the assessee's appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 24 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383626