https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784276 The dominant issue was whether revision under s.263 could be sustained on the ground that the AO allegedly failed to properly examine eligibility for deduction under s.80P(2)(a)(i) in respect of interest income from deposits of surplus funds with banks. The Tribunal held that the AO had specifically called for justification of the s.80P claim, considered the assessee's submissions, and then allowed the deduction in a scrutiny assessment; the view taken was plausible and consistent with coordinate bench decisions. Since s.263 requires both "erroneous" and "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue," and the assessment order was not erroneous, the revision order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. en-us Fri, 24 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Jan 2026 08:18:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784276 The dominant issue was whether revision under s.263 could be sustained on the ground that the AO allegedly failed to properly examine eligibility for deduction under s.80P(2)(a)(i) in respect of interest income from deposits of surplus funds with banks. The Tribunal held that the AO had specifically called for justification of the s.80P claim, considered the assessee's submissions, and then allowed the deduction in a scrutiny assessment; the view taken was plausible and consistent with coordinate bench decisions. Since s.263 requires both "erroneous" and "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue," and the assessment order was not erroneous, the revision order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 24 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784276