https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56310 A prior unappealed revisional order under section 263 bound the Assessing Officer in the fresh assessment, so directions under section 144A could not displace it. The Commissioner's revision was therefore valid because the assessment made contrary to the earlier final revisional findings was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. For computing balancing charge under section 41(2), contingencies reserve, development reserve and regular payment deposit were treated as liabilities, not deductible from sale consideration, and the assessee failed to prove that consumers' contribution was a reserve. The full sale consideration was accordingly taken into account and the claimed deductions were disallowed. en-us Mon, 10 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Dec 2010 09:57:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56310 A prior unappealed revisional order under section 263 bound the Assessing Officer in the fresh assessment, so directions under section 144A could not displace it. The Commissioner's revision was therefore valid because the assessment made contrary to the earlier final revisional findings was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. For computing balancing charge under section 41(2), contingencies reserve, development reserve and regular payment deposit were treated as liabilities, not deductible from sale consideration, and the assessee failed to prove that consumers' contribution was a reserve. The full sale consideration was accordingly taken into account and the claimed deductions were disallowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 10 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56310