https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411631 The tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's order under Section 263. It was found that the Assessing Officer had properly investigated the share capital and share premium sources, accepting the explanations provided by the assessee. The tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming revisional jurisdiction as the AO's actions were not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. Therefore, the PCIT lacked jurisdiction, and the tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the PCIT's order. en-us Thu, 19 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Aug 2021 09:18:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411631 The tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's order under Section 263. It was found that the Assessing Officer had properly investigated the share capital and share premium sources, accepting the explanations provided by the assessee. The tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming revisional jurisdiction as the AO's actions were not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. Therefore, the PCIT lacked jurisdiction, and the tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the PCIT's order. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 19 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411631