https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788958 ITAT Ahmedabad held that revision under section 263 was not justified where the Assessing Officer had allowed deduction of DPCO liability while computing book profits under section 115JB on a plausible view. The liability had already been accepted as an ascertained liability in the assessee's own case, and the DPCO dispute was still pending before the High Court. The Principal Commissioner's assumption that the liability had been settled by the Supreme Court, and that the amount was only a bank guarantee obligation, was factually incorrect. As the assessment view was neither erroneous nor prejudicial on that basis, the revisionary order was set aside. en-us Wed, 18 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Apr 2026 07:51:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788958 ITAT Ahmedabad held that revision under section 263 was not justified where the Assessing Officer had allowed deduction of DPCO liability while computing book profits under section 115JB on a plausible view. The liability had already been accepted as an ascertained liability in the assessee's own case, and the DPCO dispute was still pending before the High Court. The Principal Commissioner's assumption that the liability had been settled by the Supreme Court, and that the amount was only a bank guarantee obligation, was factually incorrect. As the assessment view was neither erroneous nor prejudicial on that basis, the revisionary order was set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 18 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788958