https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784844 Whether revision under s.263 was sustainable where PCIT quashed assessment based on AO's proposal challenging capital gains valuation. The Tribunal held that the faceless AO had examined documentary evidence, accepted returned income after verification and relied on a registered valuer's FMV; referral to the DVO and a contrary valuation did not, by itself, render the assessment erroneous or prejudicial. Reliance on authoritative HC rulings (holding that a Pr.CIT cannot invoke s.263 merely on an AO proposal or where valuation is scientifically determined) formed the legal basis. The Pr.CIT's s.263 order was quashed and the appeal allowed. en-us Tue, 23 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jan 2026 08:29:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784844 Whether revision under s.263 was sustainable where PCIT quashed assessment based on AO's proposal challenging capital gains valuation. The Tribunal held that the faceless AO had examined documentary evidence, accepted returned income after verification and relied on a registered valuer's FMV; referral to the DVO and a contrary valuation did not, by itself, render the assessment erroneous or prejudicial. Reliance on authoritative HC rulings (holding that a Pr.CIT cannot invoke s.263 merely on an AO proposal or where valuation is scientifically determined) formed the legal basis. The Pr.CIT's s.263 order was quashed and the appeal allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 23 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784844