CIT v. Suhana Woolen Mills

94 ITR 458Reported decision#6433 most cited

What is CIT v. Suhana Woolen Mills authority for?

Initiation of revision proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act based solely on an audit objection is not valid. Such proceedings are invalid if based on the proposal of the Assessing Officer to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for initiation under Section 263.

18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2026 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Suhana Woolen Mills · Section 263 · revision proceedings · audit objection · Pr. CIT · Assessing Officer proposal · invalid revision · quash order u/s 263

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57(iv)Section 10(37)Section 145B(1)Section 151Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 145b(1)section 145a(b)section 145bsection 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)sanction under section 151section 10(37)faceless assessment schemeenhanced compensationinadequate enquiryrectification u/s 154

Judgments citing CIT v. Suhana Woolen Mills

ANIL TUTEJA,FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 780/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…rtment, the order of Pr. CIT was not valid. In this regard, reference is made to the following decisions:  Ajay Grover vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad (4113/Del/2016)  CIT vs. Suhana Woolen Mills (2008) (296 ITR 238) (P & H)  Surinder Pal Singh vs. Pr. CIT (2022) (94 ITR 458)  M/s Grasim Industries vs. PCIT, Central-1, Mumbai (1964/Mum/2019) (Mumbai ITAT)  In view of the above, since the Ld. PCIT has initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act based on audit objection, the order u/s 263 is not valid and, hence, it is prayed that the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act may be quashed. The initiation of revision p…

KARAN PRATAP SINGH,SIRSA, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SIRSA, HARYANA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 761/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…rtment, the order of Pr. CIT was not valid. In this regard, reference is made to the following decisions:  Ajay Grover vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad (4113/Del/2016)  CIT vs. Suhana Woolen Mills (2008) (296 ITR 238) (P & H)  Surinder Pal Singh vs. Pr. CIT (2022) (94 ITR 458)  M/s Grasim Industries vs. PCIT, Central-1, Mumbai (1964/Mum/2019) (Mumbai ITAT)  In view of the above, since the Ld. PCIT has initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act based on audit objection, the order u/s 263 is not valid and, hence, it is prayed that the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act may be quashed. The initiation of revision p…

MUNISH KUMAR LEGAL HEIR LATE SH GURDEEP SINGH,VILL MANAKPUR, YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 5, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 754/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…rtment, the order of Pr. CIT was not valid. In this regard, reference is made to the following decisions:  Ajay Grover vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad (4113/Del/2016)  CIT vs. Suhana Woolen Mills (2008) (296 ITR 238) (P & H)  Surinder Pal Singh vs. Pr. CIT (2022) (94 ITR 458)  M/s Grasim Industries vs. PCIT, Central-1, Mumbai (1964/Mum/2019) (Mumbai ITAT)  In view of the above, since the Ld. PCIT has initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act based on audit objection, the order u/s 263 is not valid and, hence, it is prayed that the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act may be quashed. The initiation of revision p…

MADHU GREWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 603/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…rtment, the order of Pr. CIT was not valid. In this regard, reference is made to the following decisions:  Ajay Grover vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad (4113/Del/2016)  CIT vs. Suhana Woolen Mills (2008) (296 ITR 238) (P & H)  Surinder Pal Singh vs. Pr. CIT (2022) (94 ITR 458)  M/s Grasim Industries vs. PCIT, Central-1, Mumbai (1964/Mum/2019) (Mumbai ITAT)  In view of the above, since the Ld. PCIT has initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act based on audit objection, the order u/s 263 is not valid and, hence, it is prayed that the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act may be quashed. The initiation of revision p…

PARVEEN KUMAR,229,VILLAGE MANAKPUR-II,TEHSIL JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT PANCHKULA, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 576/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…rtment, the order of Pr. CIT was not valid. In this regard, reference is made to the following decisions:  Ajay Grover vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad (4113/Del/2016)  CIT vs. Suhana Woolen Mills (2008) (296 ITR 238) (P & H)  Surinder Pal Singh vs. Pr. CIT (2022) (94 ITR 458)  M/s Grasim Industries vs. PCIT, Central-1, Mumbai (1964/Mum/2019) (Mumbai ITAT)  In view of the above, since the Ld. PCIT has initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act based on audit objection, the order u/s 263 is not valid and, hence, it is prayed that the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act may be quashed. The initiation of revision p…

MANINDER JEET SINGH V.P.O. UDHAMGARH,JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 575/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…rtment, the order of Pr. CIT was not valid. In this regard, reference is made to the following decisions:  Ajay Grover vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad (4113/Del/2016)  CIT vs. Suhana Woolen Mills (2008) (296 ITR 238) (P & H)  Surinder Pal Singh vs. Pr. CIT (2022) (94 ITR 458)  M/s Grasim Industries vs. PCIT, Central-1, Mumbai (1964/Mum/2019) (Mumbai ITAT)  In view of the above, since the Ld. PCIT has initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act based on audit objection, the order u/s 263 is not valid and, hence, it is prayed that the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act may be quashed. The initiation of revision p…

RAM NIWAS,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SIRSA ROAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA, FATEHABAD

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 498/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…rtment, the order of Pr. CIT was not valid. In this regard, reference is made to the following decisions:  Ajay Grover vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad (4113/Del/2016)  CIT vs. Suhana Woolen Mills (2008) (296 ITR 238) (P & H)  Surinder Pal Singh vs. Pr. CIT (2022) (94 ITR 458)  M/s Grasim Industries vs. PCIT, Central-1, Mumbai (1964/Mum/2019) (Mumbai ITAT)  In view of the above, since the Ld. PCIT has initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act based on audit objection, the order u/s 263 is not valid and, hence, it is prayed that the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act may be quashed. The initiation of revision p…

RAKESH KUMAR,JAGADHRI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 456/CHANDI/2024[2015-16 ]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…rtment, the order of Pr. CIT was not valid. In this regard, reference is made to the following decisions:  Ajay Grover vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad (4113/Del/2016)  CIT vs. Suhana Woolen Mills (2008) (296 ITR 238) (P & H)  Surinder Pal Singh vs. Pr. CIT (2022) (94 ITR 458)  M/s Grasim Industries vs. PCIT, Central-1, Mumbai (1964/Mum/2019) (Mumbai ITAT)  In view of the above, since the Ld. PCIT has initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act based on audit objection, the order u/s 263 is not valid and, hence, it is prayed that the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act may be quashed. The initiation of revision p…

ASHOK KUMAR THAKRAL,JAGADHRI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA , PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 455/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…rtment, the order of Pr. CIT was not valid. In this regard, reference is made to the following decisions:  Ajay Grover vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad (4113/Del/2016)  CIT vs. Suhana Woolen Mills (2008) (296 ITR 238) (P & H)  Surinder Pal Singh vs. Pr. CIT (2022) (94 ITR 458)  M/s Grasim Industries vs. PCIT, Central-1, Mumbai (1964/Mum/2019) (Mumbai ITAT)  In view of the above, since the Ld. PCIT has initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act based on audit objection, the order u/s 263 is not valid and, hence, it is prayed that the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act may be quashed. The initiation of revision p…

KARTAR SINGH, FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 335/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…rtment, the order of Pr. CIT was not valid. In this regard, reference is made to the following decisions:  Ajay Grover vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad (4113/Del/2016)  CIT vs. Suhana Woolen Mills (2008) (296 ITR 238) (P & H)  Surinder Pal Singh vs. Pr. CIT (2022) (94 ITR 458)  M/s Grasim Industries vs. PCIT, Central-1, Mumbai (1964/Mum/2019) (Mumbai ITAT)  In view of the above, since the Ld. PCIT has initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act based on audit objection, the order u/s 263 is not valid and, hence, it is prayed that the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act may be quashed. The initiation of revision p…

SH. RAM LAL,FATEHABAD vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 332/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…rtment, the order of Pr. CIT was not valid. In this regard, reference is made to the following decisions:  Ajay Grover vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad (4113/Del/2016)  CIT vs. Suhana Woolen Mills (2008) (296 ITR 238) (P & H)  Surinder Pal Singh vs. Pr. CIT (2022) (94 ITR 458)  M/s Grasim Industries vs. PCIT, Central-1, Mumbai (1964/Mum/2019) (Mumbai ITAT)  In view of the above, since the Ld. PCIT has initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act based on audit objection, the order u/s 263 is not valid and, hence, it is prayed that the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act may be quashed. The initiation of revision p…

BIMLA DEVI,JAGADHRI vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 328/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…rtment, the order of Pr. CIT was not valid. In this regard, reference is made to the following decisions:  Ajay Grover vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad (4113/Del/2016)  CIT vs. Suhana Woolen Mills (2008) (296 ITR 238) (P & H)  Surinder Pal Singh vs. Pr. CIT (2022) (94 ITR 458)  M/s Grasim Industries vs. PCIT, Central-1, Mumbai (1964/Mum/2019) (Mumbai ITAT)  In view of the above, since the Ld. PCIT has initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act based on audit objection, the order u/s 263 is not valid and, hence, it is prayed that the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act may be quashed. The initiation of revision p…

PARAMJIT SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 327/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…rtment, the order of Pr. CIT was not valid. In this regard, reference is made to the following decisions:  Ajay Grover vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad (4113/Del/2016)  CIT vs. Suhana Woolen Mills (2008) (296 ITR 238) (P & H)  Surinder Pal Singh vs. Pr. CIT (2022) (94 ITR 458)  M/s Grasim Industries vs. PCIT, Central-1, Mumbai (1964/Mum/2019) (Mumbai ITAT)  In view of the above, since the Ld. PCIT has initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act based on audit objection, the order u/s 263 is not valid and, hence, it is prayed that the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act may be quashed. The initiation of revision p…

INDER KAUR,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 326/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…rtment, the order of Pr. CIT was not valid. In this regard, reference is made to the following decisions:  Ajay Grover vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad (4113/Del/2016)  CIT vs. Suhana Woolen Mills (2008) (296 ITR 238) (P & H)  Surinder Pal Singh vs. Pr. CIT (2022) (94 ITR 458)  M/s Grasim Industries vs. PCIT, Central-1, Mumbai (1964/Mum/2019) (Mumbai ITAT)  In view of the above, since the Ld. PCIT has initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act based on audit objection, the order u/s 263 is not valid and, hence, it is prayed that the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act may be quashed. The initiation of revision p…

SH. AMARJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 325/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…rtment, the order of Pr. CIT was not valid. In this regard, reference is made to the following decisions:  Ajay Grover vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad (4113/Del/2016)  CIT vs. Suhana Woolen Mills (2008) (296 ITR 238) (P & H)  Surinder Pal Singh vs. Pr. CIT (2022) (94 ITR 458)  M/s Grasim Industries vs. PCIT, Central-1, Mumbai (1964/Mum/2019) (Mumbai ITAT)  In view of the above, since the Ld. PCIT has initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act based on audit objection, the order u/s 263 is not valid and, hence, it is prayed that the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act may be quashed. The initiation of revision p…

SH. GURDEEP SINGH MAHAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 233/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…rtment, the order of Pr. CIT was not valid. In this regard, reference is made to the following decisions:  Ajay Grover vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad (4113/Del/2016)  CIT vs. Suhana Woolen Mills (2008) (296 ITR 238) (P & H)  Surinder Pal Singh vs. Pr. CIT (2022) (94 ITR 458)  M/s Grasim Industries vs. PCIT, Central-1, Mumbai (1964/Mum/2019) (Mumbai ITAT)  In view of the above, since the Ld. PCIT has initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act based on audit objection, the order u/s 263 is not valid and, hence, it is prayed that the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act may be quashed. The initiation of revision p…

SH. DEVENDER KUMAR,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD -1, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 192/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…rtment, the order of Pr. CIT was not valid. In this regard, reference is made to the following decisions:  Ajay Grover vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad (4113/Del/2016)  CIT vs. Suhana Woolen Mills (2008) (296 ITR 238) (P & H)  Surinder Pal Singh vs. Pr. CIT (2022) (94 ITR 458)  M/s Grasim Industries vs. PCIT, Central-1, Mumbai (1964/Mum/2019) (Mumbai ITAT)  In view of the above, since the Ld. PCIT has initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act based on audit objection, the order u/s 263 is not valid and, hence, it is prayed that the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act may be quashed. The initiation of revision p…

SH. BALJINDER SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT, CHANDIGARH -1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 167/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…rtment, the order of Pr. CIT was not valid. In this regard, reference is made to the following decisions:  Ajay Grover vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad (4113/Del/2016)  CIT vs. Suhana Woolen Mills (2008) (296 ITR 238) (P & H)  Surinder Pal Singh vs. Pr. CIT (2022) (94 ITR 458)  M/s Grasim Industries vs. PCIT, Central-1, Mumbai (1964/Mum/2019) (Mumbai ITAT)  In view of the above, since the Ld. PCIT has initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act based on audit objection, the order u/s 263 is not valid and, hence, it is prayed that the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act may be quashed. The initiation of revision p…

CIT v. Suhana Woolen Mills (94 ITR 458) — Cited in 18 Judgments | BharatTax