https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432776 Revision under section 263 was upheld because the assessment had allowed exemption under section 10(37) without proper examination of whether the land transfer was a compulsory acquisition. The assessee failed to establish the cumulative statutory condition that the transfer was by way of compulsory acquisition under law; the documents instead indicated a mutual agreement and sale to GIDC. Earlier acquisition proceedings had lapsed in the changed statutory framework, and the later transaction did not acquire the character of compulsory acquisition merely because it followed those proceedings. On those facts, the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, and the exemption under section 10(37) was not available. en-us Wed, 11 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jan 2023 07:01:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432776 Revision under section 263 was upheld because the assessment had allowed exemption under section 10(37) without proper examination of whether the land transfer was a compulsory acquisition. The assessee failed to establish the cumulative statutory condition that the transfer was by way of compulsory acquisition under law; the documents instead indicated a mutual agreement and sale to GIDC. Earlier acquisition proceedings had lapsed in the changed statutory framework, and the later transaction did not acquire the character of compulsory acquisition merely because it followed those proceedings. On those facts, the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, and the exemption under section 10(37) was not available. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 11 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432776