https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785045 Revision under section 263 was challenged on whether the order of the assessing officer was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue; the reasoning was that jurisdiction for revision requires a demonstrable error and prejudice, and absent any incorrect fact, misapplication of law, or overlooked material the revisional power cannot be exercised. The assessing officer had made specific inquiries, considered audited financial statements, and taken a plausible view on partner drawings and interest allowability; because the revisional order rested on assumptions and a mere change of opinion, the revision was quashed and the appeal allowed. en-us Tue, 25 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Jan 2026 08:03:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785045 Revision under section 263 was challenged on whether the order of the assessing officer was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue; the reasoning was that jurisdiction for revision requires a demonstrable error and prejudice, and absent any incorrect fact, misapplication of law, or overlooked material the revisional power cannot be exercised. The assessing officer had made specific inquiries, considered audited financial statements, and taken a plausible view on partner drawings and interest allowability; because the revisional order rested on assumptions and a mere change of opinion, the revision was quashed and the appeal allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 25 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785045