<?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>2026 (9) TMI 1406 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799380</link>
    <description>Section 263 revision requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue; revenue loss or the Commissioner&#039;s disagreement with a legally sustainable view does not suffice. Export quota-sale premium accepted for deduction under Section 80HHC was treated as outside the specified export-incentive receipts under Sections 28(iiia) to 28(iiic) and therefore subject to the exclusion under Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC. Although a CBDT Office Memorandum binds departmental officers, it cannot override statutory interpretation applied in judicial proceedings. As the Assessing Officer had not applied the relevant statutory criteria, the assessment satisfied both conditions for revision and the Commissioner&#039;s Section 263 action was justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2026 08:57:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=924397" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (9) TMI 1406 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799380</link>
      <description>Section 263 revision requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue; revenue loss or the Commissioner&#039;s disagreement with a legally sustainable view does not suffice. Export quota-sale premium accepted for deduction under Section 80HHC was treated as outside the specified export-incentive receipts under Sections 28(iiia) to 28(iiic) and therefore subject to the exclusion under Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC. Although a CBDT Office Memorandum binds departmental officers, it cannot override statutory interpretation applied in judicial proceedings. As the Assessing Officer had not applied the relevant statutory criteria, the assessment satisfied both conditions for revision and the Commissioner&#039;s Section 263 action was justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799380</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>