https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467795 Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 was upheld because the assessment records showed no meaningful enquiry by the Assessing Officer on the applicability of section 50C or on the allowability of interest expenditure in computing long-term capital gains. An assessment made without enquiry on material issues cannot be treated as a conscious adoption of one permissible view and is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Principal Commissioner was therefore justified in revising the assessment, and the assessee's challenge failed. en-us Tue, 23 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Apr 2026 14:40:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467795 Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 was upheld because the assessment records showed no meaningful enquiry by the Assessing Officer on the applicability of section 50C or on the allowability of interest expenditure in computing long-term capital gains. An assessment made without enquiry on material issues cannot be treated as a conscious adoption of one permissible view and is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Principal Commissioner was therefore justified in revising the assessment, and the assessee's challenge failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 23 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467795