https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756199 The ITAT Patna upheld the CIT's revision order u/s 263 regarding the character of rental income. The assessee had inconsistently treated rental income as business income in prior years but claimed it as house property income for AY 2015-16, seeking deductions u/s 24. The AO failed to examine this shift in treatment methodology. The ITAT held that the AO committed an apparent error by not investigating how the same rental agreement could generate different types of income, citing the Shambhu Investment precedent that classification depends on the nature of agreement and premises usage. The revision was deemed valid as the AO's oversight prejudiced revenue interests. en-us Wed, 24 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Jul 2024 11:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756199 The ITAT Patna upheld the CIT's revision order u/s 263 regarding the character of rental income. The assessee had inconsistently treated rental income as business income in prior years but claimed it as house property income for AY 2015-16, seeking deductions u/s 24. The AO failed to examine this shift in treatment methodology. The ITAT held that the AO committed an apparent error by not investigating how the same rental agreement could generate different types of income, citing the Shambhu Investment precedent that classification depends on the nature of agreement and premises usage. The revision was deemed valid as the AO's oversight prejudiced revenue interests. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 24 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756199