https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784470 The dominant issue was whether the PCIT could validly revise an assessment framed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) despite prior administrative approval u/s 153D, and whether the assessment was "erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" u/s 263 regarding alleged cash payment in a TDR purchase. The Tribunal held that u/s 153D approval does not fetter the PCIT's jurisdiction u/s 263. However, on merits, it found the AO had conducted adequate enquiries, called for and verified documents, and taken a plausible view, including recording a key statement denying linkage of seized notings to the assessee, and the Revenue showed no unmet enquiry or incriminating material; the revision was quashed and the assessee's appeal was allowed. en-us Fri, 14 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2026 08:47:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784470 The dominant issue was whether the PCIT could validly revise an assessment framed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) despite prior administrative approval u/s 153D, and whether the assessment was "erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" u/s 263 regarding alleged cash payment in a TDR purchase. The Tribunal held that u/s 153D approval does not fetter the PCIT's jurisdiction u/s 263. However, on merits, it found the AO had conducted adequate enquiries, called for and verified documents, and taken a plausible view, including recording a key statement denying linkage of seized notings to the assessee, and the Revenue showed no unmet enquiry or incriminating material; the revision was quashed and the assessee's appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 14 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784470