https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758501 Revision under Section 263 was upheld where the Assessing Officer had not made adequate inquiry before accepting claims, making the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The Court accepted that revisional interference is justified even where the assessee may contend that two plausible views exist, if the original order reflects non-application of mind on material issues. The Assessing Officer was directed, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity, to re-examine the allowability of the expenditure and the carry forward of losses and pass a fresh order on merits in accordance with law. en-us Mon, 09 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Apr 2026 17:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758501 Revision under Section 263 was upheld where the Assessing Officer had not made adequate inquiry before accepting claims, making the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The Court accepted that revisional interference is justified even where the assessee may contend that two plausible views exist, if the original order reflects non-application of mind on material issues. The Assessing Officer was directed, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity, to re-examine the allowability of the expenditure and the carry forward of losses and pass a fresh order on merits in accordance with law. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 09 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758501