https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462085 The ITAT Mumbai held that the CIT's revision u/s 263 was invalid. The assessee entered a development agreement for land development with profit-sharing, treating income as capital gains. The AO accepted this treatment after conducting enquiries through notices u/s 142(1). The CIT argued the assessment was erroneous as the AO failed to examine the transaction's genuineness. The ITAT found the development agreement clearly established the developer bore all risks and costs, not constituting joint development. The AO had consistently treated similar income as capital gains in previous years. Lack of detailed discussion in the assessment order didn't render it erroneous when proper enquiries were conducted. The revision jurisdiction requires the order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests, which wasn't established. en-us Mon, 15 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 May 2025 21:35:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462085 The ITAT Mumbai held that the CIT's revision u/s 263 was invalid. The assessee entered a development agreement for land development with profit-sharing, treating income as capital gains. The AO accepted this treatment after conducting enquiries through notices u/s 142(1). The CIT argued the assessment was erroneous as the AO failed to examine the transaction's genuineness. The ITAT found the development agreement clearly established the developer bore all risks and costs, not constituting joint development. The AO had consistently treated similar income as capital gains in previous years. Lack of detailed discussion in the assessment order didn't render it erroneous when proper enquiries were conducted. The revision jurisdiction requires the order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests, which wasn't established. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 15 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462085