https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762028 Revision under section 263 could not be sustained where the capital gain from transfer of property had already been disclosed and assessed in an earlier year under section 143(3). The later registration of the sale deed did not create a fresh taxable event for the same transaction, so the assessment for the year under revision was not erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue. Section 50C also did not justify revisional action on these facts, as the stamp duty valuation would not alter the taxable position for the relevant year. The revisionary order was therefore quashed. en-us Mon, 07 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Nov 2024 07:50:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762028 Revision under section 263 could not be sustained where the capital gain from transfer of property had already been disclosed and assessed in an earlier year under section 143(3). The later registration of the sale deed did not create a fresh taxable event for the same transaction, so the assessment for the year under revision was not erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue. Section 50C also did not justify revisional action on these facts, as the stamp duty valuation would not alter the taxable position for the relevant year. The revisionary order was therefore quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 07 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762028