https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386524 Revision under section 263 was upheld where the assessment order was found erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue because the Assessing Officer failed to apply the binding jurisdictional High Court ruling that payments for obtaining TV signals attracted tax deduction at source under section 194C. The assessment was based on a factually distinguishable Tribunal decision and overlooked the auditor's observation about the absence of the requisite certificate in relation to payments covered by section 40A(3). On those grounds, the Principal Commissioner was justified in revising the assessment, and the revisionary order was held valid. en-us Tue, 06 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Oct 2019 09:50:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386524 Revision under section 263 was upheld where the assessment order was found erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue because the Assessing Officer failed to apply the binding jurisdictional High Court ruling that payments for obtaining TV signals attracted tax deduction at source under section 194C. The assessment was based on a factually distinguishable Tribunal decision and overlooked the auditor's observation about the absence of the requisite certificate in relation to payments covered by section 40A(3). On those grounds, the Principal Commissioner was justified in revising the assessment, and the revisionary order was held valid. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 06 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386524