<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Section 263 revision fails where enquiry was made, a possible view was taken, and Explanation 2 lacked notice.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99519</link>
    <description>Revision under section 263 was unwarranted where the Assessing Officer had examined the assessee&#039;s accumulation claim, Form No. 10, board resolutions and utilisation particulars, and had adopted a possible view on the material before him. The Commissioner could not invoke revision merely because he wanted deeper verification or considered another view preferable; absent independent demonstration that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, the exercise amounted to an impermissible fishing enquiry. The Court also held that Explanation 2 to section 263 could not be applied without prior notice to the assessee. The alleged tax consequence of non-utilisation of accumulated income did not arise in the relevant assessment year.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 08:32:10 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 08:32:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=900083" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Section 263 revision fails where enquiry was made, a possible view was taken, and Explanation 2 lacked notice.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99519</link>
      <description>Revision under section 263 was unwarranted where the Assessing Officer had examined the assessee&#039;s accumulation claim, Form No. 10, board resolutions and utilisation particulars, and had adopted a possible view on the material before him. The Commissioner could not invoke revision merely because he wanted deeper verification or considered another view preferable; absent independent demonstration that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, the exercise amounted to an impermissible fishing enquiry. The Court also held that Explanation 2 to section 263 could not be applied without prior notice to the assessee. The alleged tax consequence of non-utilisation of accumulated income did not arise in the relevant assessment year.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 08:32:10 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99519</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>