https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768111 ITAT Jaipur quashed PCIT's revision order u/s 263, holding the AO's assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue. The tribunal found PCIT incorrectly alleged non-verification of Section 69 applicability when assessee had explained investment sources during survey. PCIT made calculation errors regarding ESI amounts and valuation differences. The tribunal ruled that sources of investments were properly verified by AO, disallowance of late ESI/PF payments was unjustified, and Section 115BBE provisions were inapplicable as investment year and quantum weren't identified. PCIT's revision was based on assumptions without establishing prejudice to revenue interests. Assessee's appeal allowed. en-us Wed, 01 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Apr 2025 08:31:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768111 ITAT Jaipur quashed PCIT's revision order u/s 263, holding the AO's assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue. The tribunal found PCIT incorrectly alleged non-verification of Section 69 applicability when assessee had explained investment sources during survey. PCIT made calculation errors regarding ESI amounts and valuation differences. The tribunal ruled that sources of investments were properly verified by AO, disallowance of late ESI/PF payments was unjustified, and Section 115BBE provisions were inapplicable as investment year and quantum weren't identified. PCIT's revision was based on assumptions without establishing prejudice to revenue interests. Assessee's appeal allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 01 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768111