https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766109 The Bombay HC set aside the revisional authority's order declining to exercise jurisdiction under Section 264 of the IT Act. The court held that the commissioner's refusal based on availability of appeal remedy and the assessee's choice not to appeal was legally untenable, citing precedent in Aafreen Fatima case. The HC also ruled that intimation under Section 143(1) constitutes an order amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 264, referencing Gopal Vazirani and Smita Rohit Gupta decisions. The matter was remanded to the revisional authority for decision on merits. en-us Mon, 10 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Apr 2026 13:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766109 The Bombay HC set aside the revisional authority's order declining to exercise jurisdiction under Section 264 of the IT Act. The court held that the commissioner's refusal based on availability of appeal remedy and the assessee's choice not to appeal was legally untenable, citing precedent in Aafreen Fatima case. The HC also ruled that intimation under Section 143(1) constitutes an order amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 264, referencing Gopal Vazirani and Smita Rohit Gupta decisions. The matter was remanded to the revisional authority for decision on merits. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 10 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766109