https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785062 The Tribunal considered whether revision under section 263 could be invoked where a reassessment order was alleged to be erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue, and whether non-deduction disallowance on payments to non-residents could be enhanced to 100% under section 40(a)(i). It held that section 263 requires both error and prejudice, and that the actual prejudice condition was not satisfied. On the treaty issue, it found that a 100% disallowance for non-resident payments, when comparable resident payments attract only a 30% disallowance, is discriminatory and inconsistent with Article 26(3) of the India-USA DTAA, which prevails where more beneficial. The revisionary jurisdiction and the enhancement were therefore not sustained. en-us Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Jan 2026 08:03:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785062 The Tribunal considered whether revision under section 263 could be invoked where a reassessment order was alleged to be erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue, and whether non-deduction disallowance on payments to non-residents could be enhanced to 100% under section 40(a)(i). It held that section 263 requires both error and prejudice, and that the actual prejudice condition was not satisfied. On the treaty issue, it found that a 100% disallowance for non-resident payments, when comparable resident payments attract only a 30% disallowance, is discriminatory and inconsistent with Article 26(3) of the India-USA DTAA, which prevails where more beneficial. The revisionary jurisdiction and the enhancement were therefore not sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785062