https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95418 The dominant issue was whether revision under s.263 could be sustained on the premise that carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation and business losses was wrongly allowed due to non-fulfilment of the three-year existence condition in s.72A(2). The court held that s.72A(4), applicable to a demerger, contains no such condition, and the record showed the authority was aware of the assessee's reliance on this distinction. As the revisional authority neither identified a concrete error in the assessment nor articulated any specific doubt despite available scheme orders, the s.263 direction was held to be a roving enquiry and invalid; questions were answered in favour of the assessee. - HC en-us Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:36 +0530 Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95418 The dominant issue was whether revision under s.263 could be sustained on the premise that carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation and business losses was wrongly allowed due to non-fulfilment of the three-year existence condition in s.72A(2). The court held that s.72A(4), applicable to a demerger, contains no such condition, and the record showed the authority was aware of the assessee's reliance on this distinction. As the revisional authority neither identified a concrete error in the assessment nor articulated any specific doubt despite available scheme orders, the s.263 direction was held to be a roving enquiry and invalid; questions were answered in favour of the assessee. - HC Highlights Income Tax Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:36 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95418