https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465727 Assessee challenged exercise of revision jurisdiction under section 263 where revenue sought to reclassify recognition method from percentage of completion method to completed contract method; tribunal found the shift revenue neutral and NFAC had examined and approved the change, therefore no prejudice to revenue and revision jurisdiction was invalid, so directions quashed. Tribunal also held directions to reassess interest expense, depreciation under SEZ arrangements, deduction claim in respect of rental under 80IAB, ownership of house property, asset additions, related-party loan commercial expediency, and other investigatory directions lacked any demonstration of error by AO and were arbitrary, resulting in quashing of revision and allowance of assessee appeals. en-us Wed, 18 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Jan 2026 11:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465727 Assessee challenged exercise of revision jurisdiction under section 263 where revenue sought to reclassify recognition method from percentage of completion method to completed contract method; tribunal found the shift revenue neutral and NFAC had examined and approved the change, therefore no prejudice to revenue and revision jurisdiction was invalid, so directions quashed. Tribunal also held directions to reassess interest expense, depreciation under SEZ arrangements, deduction claim in respect of rental under 80IAB, ownership of house property, asset additions, related-party loan commercial expediency, and other investigatory directions lacked any demonstration of error by AO and were arbitrary, resulting in quashing of revision and allowance of assessee appeals. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 18 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465727