https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57392 The High Court held that the Commissioner has the power to revise orders of an IAC under section 263 if they are erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, based on a Karnataka High Court decision treating an IAC as an ITO. Regarding eligibility of deduction under section 35(1)(iv) for capital expenditure on scientific research funded by the Government, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the deduction even if the assets did not vest ownership in the assessee. The Commissioner's decision disallowing the deduction was overturned, and the ITO's order was restored in favor of the assessee. en-us Wed, 23 May 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Dec 2010 18:38:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57392 The High Court held that the Commissioner has the power to revise orders of an IAC under section 263 if they are erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, based on a Karnataka High Court decision treating an IAC as an ITO. Regarding eligibility of deduction under section 35(1)(iv) for capital expenditure on scientific research funded by the Government, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the deduction even if the assets did not vest ownership in the assessee. The Commissioner's decision disallowing the deduction was overturned, and the ITO's order was restored in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 23 May 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57392