https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469797 Revision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act is not justified merely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the depth of enquiry made by the Assessing Officer. Where the assessee produced contract notes, broker confirmations, demat statements and bank records, and the Assessing Officer examined those materials before making an addition under section 68, the assessment reflects a plausible view based on enquiry already conducted. Section 263 requires both error and prejudice to the Revenue; a different view on the same material is insufficient. On the stated facts, the Principal Commissioner had not shown adequate reasons or the minimum enquiry needed, so invocation of revisionary jurisdiction was not sustainable. en-us Mon, 17 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Jul 2026 19:00:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469797 Revision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act is not justified merely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the depth of enquiry made by the Assessing Officer. Where the assessee produced contract notes, broker confirmations, demat statements and bank records, and the Assessing Officer examined those materials before making an addition under section 68, the assessment reflects a plausible view based on enquiry already conducted. Section 263 requires both error and prejudice to the Revenue; a different view on the same material is insufficient. On the stated facts, the Principal Commissioner had not shown adequate reasons or the minimum enquiry needed, so invocation of revisionary jurisdiction was not sustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 17 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469797