“revision u/s 263”

Rectification & RevisionSection 263Section 263521 judgments

The decision most relied on for revision u/s 263 is CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan (384 ITR 200), cited in 264 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on revision u/s 263

CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan

384 ITR 200 · 2016 · Supreme Court

264

citing judgments

The Commissioner's revisional power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act is not limited to the points specified in the show-cause notice, nor is the exercise of this power contingent upon issuing a show-cause notice.

Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT

321 ITR 92 · 2010 · High Court

194

citing judgments

This case clarifies the scope of the Commissioner's revisional powers under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, holding that an assessment order can only be revised if it is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, echoing the principles laid down in Malabar Industrial.

CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works Ltd.

309 ITR 67 · 2009 · High Court

149

citing judgments

An assessment order is not erroneous or prejudicial under Section 263 merely because it is silent on a claim or lacks explicit reasons for its acceptance. Revision under Section 263 is impermissible if the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view, even if the PCIT holds a different opinion.

Babulal C. Borana v. ITO

282 ITR 251 · 2006 · High Court

138

citing judgments

An assessment order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, justifying revision under Section 263, if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct proper inquiries or apply his mind to relevant issues, such as the genuineness of purchases when corresponding sales are accepted, often leading to a remand for fresh adjudication.

CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee

341 ITR 434 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous for the purpose of Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to apply mind to relevant material, proceeds on an incorrect assumption of facts, or makes an incorrect application of law.

CIT v. Vodafone Essar South Ltd.

212 Taxmann 184 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

When an Assessing Officer conducts an inquiry and considers the assessee's disclosures, the Commissioner cannot invoke Section 263 to revise the assessment on grounds of inadequate inquiry or a mere difference of opinion. The absence of a detailed discussion on an issue in the assessment order does not automatically mean the Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat-2 v. Shreeji Prints (P.) Ltd.

130 Taxmann.com 294 · 2021 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

A plausible view taken by the Assessing Officer, after due enquiry and verification, does not render an assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the purpose of revision under Section 263, thereby limiting the scope of revisional powers.

Income-Tax v. Gokuldas Exports

333 ITR 214 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessment order is not considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for invoking Section 263 if the Assessing Officer has adopted one of two possible views, even if the Commissioner of Income-tax disagrees with that view. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' must be read in conjunction with the expression 'erroneous'.

Judgments citing revision u/s 263

Mukesh Kumar Saini, Sikandara vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is in ITA no

ITA 477/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: or at the time of hearing.” 5. It is seen that the only grievance raised by the assessee is that PCIT erred in holding the order of the assessment as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Brief facts related to the issue are culled out are that in this case a Survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on 26.02.2019 at the business premises of the assessee firm M/s Nirankar Tiles and Sanitory 4

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shailendra Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

hospital and it had no other source of income, treating the undisclosed income from other sources was not justified. (VII) Power of revision u/s 263 cannot be exercised to collect more taxes – A survey operation under Section 133A of the Act was carried out on the business premises

Colgate-Palmolive (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Mumbai

ITA 2645/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 2645/Mum/2024

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry & Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RsFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT, D/R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80GSection 80J

before 08.02.2024 at 03.00 PM. In case of non-compliance, it will be presumed that you have no objection to the proposed revision u/s 263 of the Act, of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) rws 144C(13) dated 17.02.2022. ANURAG SRIVASTAVA PCIT, Mumbai

J vs. Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vadodaravs.the Pr. CIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 411/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43Section 49

PCIT”), Vadodara vide order 29.03.2023 passed for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “Invalid Revision u/s 263: 1. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara - 1, ("PCIT") erred in fact and in law in revising the assessment framed u/s

Baroda Rajasthan Khestriya Gramin Bank, Ajmer vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/JPR/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Mantri, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Boards Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 490 (Mad.) has held that the powers of the Commissioner are very wide in exercising the powers of revision u/s 263. It is no doubt true that for making a valid order u/s 263, it is essential for the Commissioner to record an express finding ... singh Chauhan Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ITA No.238/S RT/2023 ITAT Surat held that an assessment or re- assessment could only be revised u/s 263 of the Act in case it satisfies the twin conditions, viz: order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue

Advertising Agencies Association of India, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption ), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

ITA 2370/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: ShriAmol Kirtane (CIT-DR.)

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

While doing so the Ld. CIT failed to appreciate: (a) The necessary pre-conditions for initiation and completion of a revision u/s 263 of the Act were not fulfilled in the present case; (b) The order sought to be revised by the CIT in the present case was neither erroneous ... pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal and already considered and decided by the Ld. CIT(A). On such an issue no revision u/s 263 can be made [Ref. Clause (c) of Explanation I to section 263(1)]. 5 ITA No. 2370-Mum-2024 Advertising Agencies Association of India 3. PROPOSITION

Sheetal Saini, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 72(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4141/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Us, The Only Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Gains Received On Sale Of Listed Company Shares By The Assessee In The Sum Of Rs 50,49,950/- Is To Be Treated As Business Income Or Income From Other Sources In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case. 3. We Have Heard The Rival Submissions & Perused The Materials Available On Record. The Assessee Is An Individual & Had Filed Her Return Of Income For The Asst Year 2014-15 On 28.3.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs 6,76,086/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Sold Shares Of Listed Company & Declared Capital Gains & Claimed Exemption U/S 10(38) Of The Act In The Return Of Income. The Assessee Thought It Fit To Revise Its Return Of Income By Treating The Gains Arising On Sale Of Shares As Business Income Instead Of Offering Capital Gains & Claim

Section 10(38)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

made a statement from the Bar that the said assessment had become final and no reopening u/s 147 of the Act or revision u/s 263 of the Act had been done on the same. In view of the same, there is no reason for the revenue to treat the amounts

Schneider Electric Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT 3, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 1568/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1568/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & +े यािचका सं../ S.A No.28/Chny/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1568/Chny/2024) (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Schneider Electric Systems India P. Ltd. Pcit Sp Plot No.16-19 & 20A, Chennai-3. बनाम/ Taramani Tech Park Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Vs. Guindy Industrial Estate S.O. Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcs-8027-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rohit Tiwari (Advocate) (Virtual) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari (Advocate) (Virtual) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 37Section 40A(9)

claim of the assessee which was improper. 5. The assessee defended the assessment order on the ground that twin conditions to invoke the revision u/s 263 were not fulfilled. Another argument was that the issue was specifically examined during the course of reassessment proceedings and therefore, the same could

Calcom Institute of Management Development and Training, New Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1751/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshcalcom Institute Of Vs. Cit(Exemption), Management Development & New Delhi Training, C-41, Defence Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaatc0685K Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09/07/2024

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rajinder Kaur, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

verification and accordingly the order passed thereon was sought to be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, warranting revision u/s 263 of the Act. The said show cause notice issued by the ld. CIT(E) Delhi is enclosed in pages

Metsil Exports Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Cen. -2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 929/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 79

comfortable setting off of the income under consideration. Considering this fact, it is felt that the ld. Pr. CIT giving directions for revision u/s 263 of the Act merely for the sake of Page 7 of 8 I.T.A. No.: 929/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Metsil Exports Pvt. Ltd. carrying

Yash Daga, Jaipur vs. PCIT-I, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 686/JPR/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SH. NARENDRA KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 144BSection 263Section 282Section 56(2)(x)

essence of fair trial, thus the same was quashed. 16. Further, ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in Fortune Metaliks Ltd. v. PCIT (Supra) observed that - Revision u/s 263 - denial of natural justice - assessee has argued on the legality of the order passed which is stated to be an arbitrary exercise of power

Skill Promoters Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the 3

ITA 116/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.114 To 116/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-2020) Skill Promoters (P) Ltd Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Aawcs1257Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Moha Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Moha Rao, CaFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 269SSection 271D

Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 271D for violation of section 269SS could not be considered as an error calling for revision u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, he submitted that the learned PCIT erred in setting aside the assessment order u/s 263

Skill Promoters Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the 3

ITA 115/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Moha Rao, CaFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 269SSection 271D

Skill Promoters Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the 3

ITA 114/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Moha Rao, CaFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 269SSection 271D

The Institute of Kidney Diseases & Research Centre, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 250/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

intimation u/s 143(1) which was subsequently rectified u/s 154 and demand was reduced to NIL. Thereafter, the case was taken up for revision u/s 263 on the premise that the assessee has claimed exemption under wrong section i.e. Section 10(23C)(iiiae) which AO failed to examine and disallow

Sajjad Ali, Chittorgarh vs. DCIT(Intl)- Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 459/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha (CIT-DR)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54

without jurisdiction and invalid on the facts and legal position because the ld. Pr. CIT has right or jurisdiction of revision u/s 263 only when the order of the AO (i) is erroneous in so far as (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. S. 263 provides ... JaipurTrib In CIT v/s Jain Construction 257 CTR 336(Raj.) It has been held that Revision u/s 263—Order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue—CIT issued a notice u/s 263 to assessee on ground that assessment order of AO passed u/s 143 (3) was an order erroneous

Dy. CIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore vs. M/S Pooja Marketing, Malad

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 959/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.959/Chny/2022 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit M/S. Pooja Marketing बनाम/ Central Circle-2 #181/1450, Ground Floor, Coimbatore. Motilal Nagara No.1, Goregaon West, Vs. Mumbai-400 104. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaofp-2090-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sridharan (Sr. Advocate), Shri Ravi Sawana & Ms. Krishna Laasye (Advocates)- Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-04-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sridharan (Sr. Advocate), Shri RaviFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

scrutinized u/s 143(3) and an assessment was framed against the assessee on 27-12-2016. However, the order was subjected to revision u/s 263 by Ld. Pr. CIT-31 vide order dated 30-03-2019. Pursuant to the same, another assessment was framed against the assessee u/s

Jaganathan Balasingh, Erode vs. ACIT, Erode

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 1308/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1307/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Annappandinadar Jaganathan Acit बनाम/ Prop: Jagan Metal Mart Circle-2 Canara Bank Building, Erode. Vs. Modachur Road, Gobichettipalayam-638 452. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aewpj-8097-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1308/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Jaganathan Balasingh Acit बनाम/ No.8, Mahalakshmi Metal Mart, Circle-2 Veleppa Gounder Street Erode. Vs. Chinna Modachur, Gobichettipalayam-638 476. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ahhpb-6693-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

taxed u/s 68 of the Act. This issue was not considered by Ld. AO in the assessment order which would attract revision u/s 263. 5. The assessee, it its submissions, pleaded that stock was rightly offered and assessed to tax as ‘Business Income’. The Ld. AO had applied his mind

Annapppandinadar Jaganathan, Gobichettipalayam vs. ACIT, Erode

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 1307/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

Vipul Kumar Modi, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur -I

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 310/JPR/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ranka &For Respondent: Shri Anil Dhaka (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263

Commissioner does not sit in appeal. • Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT v. Kaushalya Dealers (2023) 5 TMI 365 has held: Revision u/s 263 - loss of penny stock - as per CIT AO has not done proper verification - Scope of no enquiry - HELD THAT:- As notice u/s ... case on hand. Decided against revenue. • Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT v. Reeta Lakhmani (2022) 11 TMI 1177 has held: Revision u/s 263 - PCIT may have information from the assessment file or through other sources - correctness of the exercise of power under section 263 - contention advanced before

Sh. Baljit Singh, Ludhiana vs. Pr. CIT, Ludhiana -1, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 416/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Kaushal &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68Section 92C

appeal were filed which now reads as under: 1. That the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has wrongly assumed jurisdiction of revision u/s 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961. He has erred in law, on the given facts of the case, while activating Provisions of section 263