https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467709 Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 could not be invoked where the Assessing Officer had made specific enquiries, considered the assessee's explanation that interest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 formed part of enhanced compensation, and adopted a plausible view supporting exemption under section 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The matter involved a debatable issue, and the existence of one legally possible view barred revision. A mere audit objection did not establish error or prejudice to the Revenue, and reliance on a High Court decision on its own facts, or a non-speaking dismissal of an SLP, did not alter the binding legal position. The revisional order was therefore invalid and the assessment remained undisturbed. en-us Thu, 15 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Mar 2026 13:16:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467709 Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 could not be invoked where the Assessing Officer had made specific enquiries, considered the assessee's explanation that interest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 formed part of enhanced compensation, and adopted a plausible view supporting exemption under section 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The matter involved a debatable issue, and the existence of one legally possible view barred revision. A mere audit objection did not establish error or prejudice to the Revenue, and reliance on a High Court decision on its own facts, or a non-speaking dismissal of an SLP, did not alter the binding legal position. The revisional order was therefore invalid and the assessment remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 15 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467709