https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465631 Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be invoked where the Assessing Officer adopts one of two plausible views on a debatable issue. Here, the Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction of CSR expenditure under section 80G was supported by a consistent line of coordinate Bench decisions, making the assessment order a plausible view. The Principal Commissioner's attempt to revise the order was treated as a mere change of opinion, which is insufficient to trigger section 263. Revision was therefore held unsustainable and the assessment order was restored in favour of the assessee. en-us Fri, 13 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Jan 2026 08:03:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465631 Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be invoked where the Assessing Officer adopts one of two plausible views on a debatable issue. Here, the Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction of CSR expenditure under section 80G was supported by a consistent line of coordinate Bench decisions, making the assessment order a plausible view. The Principal Commissioner's attempt to revise the order was treated as a mere change of opinion, which is insufficient to trigger section 263. Revision was therefore held unsustainable and the assessment order was restored in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 13 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465631