https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469529 Revision under section 263 was held unsustainable where the Assessing Officer had completed the assessments in line with the then-binding jurisdictional High Court ruling in AIMIL Ltd. on employees' PF/ESI contributions. The later Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services did not justify treating the earlier assessment as erroneous or prejudicial for revision purposes. The absence of a specific query in the section 142(1) notice did not, by itself, show non-application of mind. Explanation 2 to section 263 was also inapplicable because the assessment order had followed the prevailing jurisdictional precedent. en-us Fri, 07 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Jun 2026 21:58:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469529 Revision under section 263 was held unsustainable where the Assessing Officer had completed the assessments in line with the then-binding jurisdictional High Court ruling in AIMIL Ltd. on employees' PF/ESI contributions. The later Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services did not justify treating the earlier assessment as erroneous or prejudicial for revision purposes. The absence of a specific query in the section 142(1) notice did not, by itself, show non-application of mind. Explanation 2 to section 263 was also inapplicable because the assessment order had followed the prevailing jurisdictional precedent. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 07 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469529