https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294728 The Tribunal quashed the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's order, finding that the revision jurisdiction exercised under section 263 was not sustainable. The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the Assessing Officer's decision to allow the Keyman Insurance Policy expenditure without detailed discussion was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that lack of detailed discussion by the AO does not automatically render the decision prejudicial, especially when the expenditure was apparently allowable. The assessee's appeal was allowed, and the PCIT's order was set aside. en-us Wed, 13 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294728 The Tribunal quashed the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's order, finding that the revision jurisdiction exercised under section 263 was not sustainable. The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the Assessing Officer's decision to allow the Keyman Insurance Policy expenditure without detailed discussion was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that lack of detailed discussion by the AO does not automatically render the decision prejudicial, especially when the expenditure was apparently allowable. The assessee's appeal was allowed, and the PCIT's order was set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 13 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294728