https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468813 Section 263 revision could not be sustained where the alleged error concerned stamp-duty valuation under section 50C, an issue already examined in the original scrutiny assessment under section 143(3). The reassessment under section 147 read with section 144B was initiated on a different ground, namely the applicability of section 56(2)(vii)(b) to newly acquired property, so the Commissioner could not use revisional power to reopen a concluded matter outside the scope of the reassessment. As the original order was already time-barred for revision and the reassessment order was not shown to be erroneous on its own basis, the revisional order was quashed. en-us Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 May 2026 18:59:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468813 Section 263 revision could not be sustained where the alleged error concerned stamp-duty valuation under section 50C, an issue already examined in the original scrutiny assessment under section 143(3). The reassessment under section 147 read with section 144B was initiated on a different ground, namely the applicability of section 56(2)(vii)(b) to newly acquired property, so the Commissioner could not use revisional power to reopen a concluded matter outside the scope of the reassessment. As the original order was already time-barred for revision and the reassessment order was not shown to be erroneous on its own basis, the revisional order was quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468813