https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755838 The HC held that the Principal Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revise the order of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 263, as the Tribunal had already settled the issue of deduction under Section 80IC in favor of the assessee at 100%. The AO had reduced the deduction from 100% to 30%, and this order merged with the Commissioner (A) and subsequently with the Tribunal's order. The Principal Commissioner's revision amounted to reopening a matter conclusively decided, violating principles of merger, judicial discipline, and res judicata. The court emphasized that allowing such revision would lead to endless litigation, and therefore, the Principal Commissioner's order was set aside. en-us Wed, 17 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Aug 2025 18:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755838 The HC held that the Principal Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revise the order of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 263, as the Tribunal had already settled the issue of deduction under Section 80IC in favor of the assessee at 100%. The AO had reduced the deduction from 100% to 30%, and this order merged with the Commissioner (A) and subsequently with the Tribunal's order. The Principal Commissioner's revision amounted to reopening a matter conclusively decided, violating principles of merger, judicial discipline, and res judicata. The court emphasized that allowing such revision would lead to endless litigation, and therefore, the Principal Commissioner's order was set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 17 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755838