https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754045 Revision under section 263 was sustained because the Principal Commissioner had examined the assessment record and formed a reasoned view that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue; the fact that an unsigned copy was uploaded in the portal or that service was disputed did not defeat revisional jurisdiction where the physical file contained a duly signed assessment order. The revision was also upheld on merits because the Assessing Officer had omitted the assessee-partner's share of profit from tax in the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153C, and the claimed exemption under section 10(2A) was not enough to displace the finding without proof that the amount had already been correctly assessed in the firm's hands. Fresh verification and reassessment were therefore justified. en-us Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Jun 2024 10:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754045 Revision under section 263 was sustained because the Principal Commissioner had examined the assessment record and formed a reasoned view that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue; the fact that an unsigned copy was uploaded in the portal or that service was disputed did not defeat revisional jurisdiction where the physical file contained a duly signed assessment order. The revision was also upheld on merits because the Assessing Officer had omitted the assessee-partner's share of profit from tax in the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153C, and the claimed exemption under section 10(2A) was not enough to displace the finding without proof that the amount had already been correctly assessed in the firm's hands. Fresh verification and reassessment were therefore justified. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754045