https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790898 The Principal Commissioner could not invoke revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 merely because the assessment accepted the sale consideration and treated the land transaction as long-term capital gains. The assessee had produced material showing that the sold agricultural land lay beyond the prescribed distance and therefore did not fall within the definition of a capital asset under section 2(14). On those facts, the assessment order was not shown to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, so the revisionary assumption failed. The ITAT set aside the revision directions and upheld the assessee's position. en-us Thu, 30 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 May 2026 07:40:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790898 The Principal Commissioner could not invoke revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 merely because the assessment accepted the sale consideration and treated the land transaction as long-term capital gains. The assessee had produced material showing that the sold agricultural land lay beyond the prescribed distance and therefore did not fall within the definition of a capital asset under section 2(14). On those facts, the assessment order was not shown to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, so the revisionary assumption failed. The ITAT set aside the revision directions and upheld the assessee's position. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 30 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790898