https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784605 Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the Principal Commissioner prefers a different plausible view on a debatable issue. The Assessing Officer had enquired into alleged bogus purchases and adopted one of two possible views by restricting the disallowance to 25% under section 69C, which was not shown to be unsustainable in law. As the revision sought to substitute that view with a 100% disallowance on the basis of other precedents, the assumption of revisionary jurisdiction was invalid and the order was quashed. en-us Fri, 02 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jan 2026 08:22:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784605 Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the Principal Commissioner prefers a different plausible view on a debatable issue. The Assessing Officer had enquired into alleged bogus purchases and adopted one of two possible views by restricting the disallowance to 25% under section 69C, which was not shown to be unsustainable in law. As the revision sought to substitute that view with a 100% disallowance on the basis of other precedents, the assumption of revisionary jurisdiction was invalid and the order was quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 02 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784605