https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450376 The dominant issue was whether the CIT validly exercised revisional jurisdiction under s.263 on the ground of inadequate/no enquiry regarding deductions for provision for non-performing assets and interest rate swap. The HC held that the AO had raised specific queries during scrutiny and the assessee furnished replies; non-discussion of those replies in the assessment order did not establish "no enquiry." Mere inadequacy of enquiry, absent demonstration that the assessment was both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue, could not trigger s.263. As the ITAT's factual finding that both claims were examined and caused no error or prejudice required no interference, the Revenue's challenge failed and the s.263 order remained quashed. en-us Fri, 01 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jan 2026 14:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450376 The dominant issue was whether the CIT validly exercised revisional jurisdiction under s.263 on the ground of inadequate/no enquiry regarding deductions for provision for non-performing assets and interest rate swap. The HC held that the AO had raised specific queries during scrutiny and the assessee furnished replies; non-discussion of those replies in the assessment order did not establish "no enquiry." Mere inadequacy of enquiry, absent demonstration that the assessment was both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue, could not trigger s.263. As the ITAT's factual finding that both claims were examined and caused no error or prejudice required no interference, the Revenue's challenge failed and the s.263 order remained quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 01 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450376