https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414157 The court ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the IT Act, stating that revisionary powers cannot be exercised without disturbing the initial year's assessment. However, the court sided with the Revenue on the issues of including share premium in 'Capital Employed' and treating the cost of acquisition of companies as an asset for deduction under Section 35D of the IT Act. The appeal was partly allowed in accordance with these rulings. en-us Fri, 01 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Dec 2021 16:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414157 The court ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the IT Act, stating that revisionary powers cannot be exercised without disturbing the initial year's assessment. However, the court sided with the Revenue on the issues of including share premium in 'Capital Employed' and treating the cost of acquisition of companies as an asset for deduction under Section 35D of the IT Act. The appeal was partly allowed in accordance with these rulings. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 01 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414157