https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787561 Principal Commissioner's invocation of revisional jurisdiction under section 263 was set aside because the Assessing Officer had conducted enquiries, considered submissions and documents, and adopted a plausible, sustainable view on allowance of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) for interest income. The Tribunal applied the twin conditions for section 263 (order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue) and the principle that mere disagreement with a plausible AO view does not permit replacement by the Commissioner; it also found deficiencies in the PCIT's reasoning and inadequate demonstration that the AO's view was unsustainable in law, therefore revisional power was not attracted. en-us Tue, 27 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Mar 2026 07:53:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787561 Principal Commissioner's invocation of revisional jurisdiction under section 263 was set aside because the Assessing Officer had conducted enquiries, considered submissions and documents, and adopted a plausible, sustainable view on allowance of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) for interest income. The Tribunal applied the twin conditions for section 263 (order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue) and the principle that mere disagreement with a plausible AO view does not permit replacement by the Commissioner; it also found deficiencies in the PCIT's reasoning and inadequate demonstration that the AO's view was unsustainable in law, therefore revisional power was not attracted. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 27 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787561