https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760676 Revision under section 263 was not justified where the Assessing Officer had examined the exemption claim under section 10(23C)(iiiab) and adopted a legally tenable view based on the institution's financing pattern. Interest earned on government grants was treated as part of the grant for determining substantial Government financing, and Rule 2BBB could not be applied retrospectively to the year in question. On these facts, the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, so the revisionary order was quashed and the exemption claim was upheld. en-us Tue, 22 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Oct 2024 08:10:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760676 Revision under section 263 was not justified where the Assessing Officer had examined the exemption claim under section 10(23C)(iiiab) and adopted a legally tenable view based on the institution's financing pattern. Interest earned on government grants was treated as part of the grant for determining substantial Government financing, and Rule 2BBB could not be applied retrospectively to the year in question. On these facts, the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, so the revisionary order was quashed and the exemption claim was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 22 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760676