2024 (3) TMI 830 - SCH - Income Tax

Review petition - validity of Revision u/s 263 by CIT - deduction claimed by the assessee as cost of improvement while computing long term capital gains - What can be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue? - As decided by SC 2023 (4) TMI 295 - SUPREME COURT only in a case where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has adopted one view, such a decision, which might be plausible and it has resulted in loss of Revenue, such an order is not revisable u/s 263. Applying the law laid down in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT that the scheme of the Act is to levy and collect tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act and this task is entrusted to the Revenue - also observed that if due to an erroneous order of the ITO, the Revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Assessment order was not only erroneous but prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue also - High Court has committed a very serious error in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner passed in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. HELD THAT - Application for stay is rejected. We have carefully gone through the review petition and the connected papers. We do not find any error, much less apparent, in the order impugned, warranting its reconsideration. The review petition is dismissed accordingly.

Summary

The Supreme Court in the case cited as 2024 (3) TMI 830 - SC Order, with justices A.S. Bopanna and Abhay S. Oka, condoned the delay but rejected the application for stay. After reviewing the petition and related documents, the court found no error in the impugned order and dismissed the review petition. Any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.