https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461033 The ITAT Kolkata allowed the assessee's appeal against CIT(E)'s revision order u/s 263. The tribunal held that AO had conducted proper enquiry by examining all documents including return, audit report, and Form 10 before allowing exemption u/s 11(2). CIT(E) wrongly exercised revisional jurisdiction based on erroneous assumptions. The alleged surplus fund issue arose from inadvertent error in column 4 of Schedule-I, which assessee rectified. No double deduction was claimed as alleged. AO's assessment order was restored, directing allowance of s.11(2) claim. en-us Wed, 16 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Mar 2025 19:19:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461033 The ITAT Kolkata allowed the assessee's appeal against CIT(E)'s revision order u/s 263. The tribunal held that AO had conducted proper enquiry by examining all documents including return, audit report, and Form 10 before allowing exemption u/s 11(2). CIT(E) wrongly exercised revisional jurisdiction based on erroneous assumptions. The alleged surplus fund issue arose from inadvertent error in column 4 of Schedule-I, which assessee rectified. No double deduction was claimed as alleged. AO's assessment order was restored, directing allowance of s.11(2) claim. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 16 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461033