https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774239 Where the Assessing Officer had specifically enquired into interest received under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and accepted the assessee's claim that it formed part of enhanced compensation exempt under section 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, the assessment could not be treated as erroneous merely because the order was brief. The point was debatable, and a Principal Commissioner cannot invoke revisional jurisdiction under section 263 simply because another view is possible or because of an audit objection. The discussion also noted that Supreme Court treatment of section 28 interest as part of compensation and a dismissal of an SLP in limine do not by themselves amount to a declaration of law supporting revision. en-us Mon, 30 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Jul 2025 08:47:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774239 Where the Assessing Officer had specifically enquired into interest received under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and accepted the assessee's claim that it formed part of enhanced compensation exempt under section 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, the assessment could not be treated as erroneous merely because the order was brief. The point was debatable, and a Principal Commissioner cannot invoke revisional jurisdiction under section 263 simply because another view is possible or because of an audit objection. The discussion also noted that Supreme Court treatment of section 28 interest as part of compensation and a dismissal of an SLP in limine do not by themselves amount to a declaration of law supporting revision. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 30 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774239