https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419440 The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) did not validly exercise revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263. The Assessing Officer (AO) adequately examined issues raised by the PCIT for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2016-17, accepting explanations and evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal found the PCIT did not show how the assessments were erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. Consequently, the revisionary proceedings and orders by the PCIT were quashed, and the appeals of the assessee were allowed. en-us Wed, 09 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Jun 2022 15:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419440 The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) did not validly exercise revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263. The Assessing Officer (AO) adequately examined issues raised by the PCIT for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2016-17, accepting explanations and evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal found the PCIT did not show how the assessments were erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. Consequently, the revisionary proceedings and orders by the PCIT were quashed, and the appeals of the assessee were allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 09 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419440