https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33660 The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners in a case involving challenges to orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court clarified that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax lacked jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148, emphasizing that the transfer of the case did not validate the proceedings. Additionally, the Court held that the Commissioner erred in refusing to entertain revision under Section 264, highlighting that revision is not a substitute for appeal and that the Commissioner has discretion to entertain revisions. The Court directed a reconsideration of the revisions under Section 264, emphasizing the importance of correctly interpreting the law and allowing the Commissioner to exercise discretion. en-us Wed, 27 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33660 The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners in a case involving challenges to orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court clarified that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax lacked jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148, emphasizing that the transfer of the case did not validate the proceedings. Additionally, the Court held that the Commissioner erred in refusing to entertain revision under Section 264, highlighting that revision is not a substitute for appeal and that the Commissioner has discretion to entertain revisions. The Court directed a reconsideration of the revisions under Section 264, emphasizing the importance of correctly interpreting the law and allowing the Commissioner to exercise discretion. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 27 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33660