https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26163 The Madras HC held that the Commissioner of Income-tax cannot invoke section 263 powers to revise an ITO's assessment order when the ITO lawfully chose one permissible method of taxation over another. The court ruled that once an officer adopts a particular mode of assessing income from a joint venture - whether treating it as an AOP or taxing individual members' shares - the department cannot later switch to an alternative method for the same income. For section 263 revision, both conditions must coexist: the order must be erroneous AND prejudicial to revenue interests. An assessment made in accordance with law cannot be deemed erroneous or prejudicial. The Commissioner's interference was unjustified, and the Tribunal's confirmation was based on misconception of section 263 provisions. en-us Thu, 05 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jun 2025 15:09:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26163 The Madras HC held that the Commissioner of Income-tax cannot invoke section 263 powers to revise an ITO's assessment order when the ITO lawfully chose one permissible method of taxation over another. The court ruled that once an officer adopts a particular mode of assessing income from a joint venture - whether treating it as an AOP or taxing individual members' shares - the department cannot later switch to an alternative method for the same income. For section 263 revision, both conditions must coexist: the order must be erroneous AND prejudicial to revenue interests. An assessment made in accordance with law cannot be deemed erroneous or prejudicial. The Commissioner's interference was unjustified, and the Tribunal's confirmation was based on misconception of section 263 provisions. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 05 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26163