https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39237 The court upheld the Commissioner's jurisdiction to revise the assessment order under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, determining that the revision did not prejudice the assessee but rather reduced the tax liability. The interpretation of "prejudicial to the assessee" was crucial, clarifying that an order is prejudicial only if it worsens the assessee's position. As the revision decreased the overall tax liability despite including capital gains, it was deemed non-prejudicial. The court also ruled that the limitation period under section 263 did not apply since the revision did not meet the criteria of being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The appeal was dismissed without costs. en-us Fri, 27 Jun 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Apr 2010 10:20:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39237 The court upheld the Commissioner's jurisdiction to revise the assessment order under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, determining that the revision did not prejudice the assessee but rather reduced the tax liability. The interpretation of "prejudicial to the assessee" was crucial, clarifying that an order is prejudicial only if it worsens the assessee's position. As the revision decreased the overall tax liability despite including capital gains, it was deemed non-prejudicial. The court also ruled that the limitation period under section 263 did not apply since the revision did not meet the criteria of being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The appeal was dismissed without costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 27 Jun 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39237