https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33747 The HC dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Tribunal's factual findings that the CIT's exercise of revisional power under s.263 was erroneous and prejudicial: the Assessing Officer had all necessary details, payments to subcontractors were legitimate, there was no evidence they were related parties, and the Revenue failed to discharge its onus that payments were not genuine. The Court refused to substitute suspicion for actual proof and declined to express an opinion on the Tribunal's interpretation of the term "record" in s.263(1), but quashed the Commissioner's order as unsustainable. en-us Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Sep 2025 15:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33747 The HC dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Tribunal's factual findings that the CIT's exercise of revisional power under s.263 was erroneous and prejudicial: the Assessing Officer had all necessary details, payments to subcontractors were legitimate, there was no evidence they were related parties, and the Revenue failed to discharge its onus that payments were not genuine. The Court refused to substitute suspicion for actual proof and declined to express an opinion on the Tribunal's interpretation of the term "record" in s.263(1), but quashed the Commissioner's order as unsustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33747