https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467121 Whether the Principal Commissioner's revision under section 263 was sustainable was examined by reference to the legal test that an assessing officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue to permit revision; where the AO undertakes adequate enquiry and adopts a plausible view, revisional jurisdiction is not available simply because the Commissioner prefers a different view. The Tribunal found the AO had considered sale deed, government valuer report, computations and purchase evidence and therefore took a plausible view; the revisional order was quashed and the appeal allowed for the assessee. en-us Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Mar 2026 20:54:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467121 Whether the Principal Commissioner's revision under section 263 was sustainable was examined by reference to the legal test that an assessing officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue to permit revision; where the AO undertakes adequate enquiry and adopts a plausible view, revisional jurisdiction is not available simply because the Commissioner prefers a different view. The Tribunal found the AO had considered sale deed, government valuer report, computations and purchase evidence and therefore took a plausible view; the revisional order was quashed and the appeal allowed for the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467121