https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399451 HC quashed the PCIT's order passed u/s 263, holding that the limited scrutiny assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The AO had verified the source of funds, recorded the actual sale consideration and incidental expenses, and consciously refrained from invoking s. 50C after effectively discharging the role of a valuation officer and concluding that guideline value did not reflect the fair market value. HC held that guideline value is merely indicative for stamp duty and cannot, by itself, justify revision. PCIT failed to specify any concrete error or lack of enquiry by AO; hence, the revision order was invalid and the assessee's position stood restored. en-us Tue, 06 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Dec 2025 17:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399451 HC quashed the PCIT's order passed u/s 263, holding that the limited scrutiny assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The AO had verified the source of funds, recorded the actual sale consideration and incidental expenses, and consciously refrained from invoking s. 50C after effectively discharging the role of a valuation officer and concluding that guideline value did not reflect the fair market value. HC held that guideline value is merely indicative for stamp duty and cannot, by itself, justify revision. PCIT failed to specify any concrete error or lack of enquiry by AO; hence, the revision order was invalid and the assessee's position stood restored. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 06 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399451