← All Phrases

“Section 263(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 263Section 263(1)736 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 263(1) is Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83), cited in 2,943 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 263(1)

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Max India Ltd.
295 ITR 282 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,162
citing judgments

Under Section 263, an assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's (AO) view, particularly if the AO has adopted one of two permissible views in law, unless that view is completely unsustainable. If due inquiries were made, the AO's order does not become erroneous solely because the fact of inquiries was not recorded.

CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.
203 ITR 108 · 1993 · High Court
990
citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order under Section 263 merely because they hold a different opinion or believe a deeper inquiry was warranted if the Assessing Officer has applied their mind and conducted some inquiry. Revision under Section 263 is permissible only in cases of a complete lack of inquiry or non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, not for merely inadequate inquiry.

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.
332 ITR 167 · 2011 · High Court
897
citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment under Section 263 merely because the assessment order does not explicitly reflect an inquiry, or because the Commissioner holds a different opinion. An inquiry, even if considered inadequate, or an assessment based on a plausible view by the Assessing Officer after due examination, does not automatically make the order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT
67 ITR 84 · 1968 · Supreme Court
616
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests if the Assessing Officer accepts a sum offered as income by an assessee, even when that sum was not actually earned, thereby allowing revision under Section 263.

Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT
225 ITR 802 · 1997 · Supreme Court
568
citing judgments

Expenditure that provides an enduring benefit should be amortized over its useful life, not allowed as a deduction in a single year, to prevent a distorted picture of profits. Specifically, premium paid on debentures for their issue should be amortized on a straight-line method over the life of the debentures.

Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT
99 ITR 375 · 1975 · High Court
543
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue if the Assessing Officer fails to make proper inquiries before accepting the assessee's statements or claims. The Commissioner can revise such an order under Section 263 without conducting further inquiries himself.

Subramanian and Anr. v. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr.
156 ITR 11 · 1985 · High Court
541
citing judgments

When there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts, the view that favors the assessee should be preferred.

Judgments citing Section 263(1)

Authorgen Technologies Private Limited, Punjab vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 541/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 541/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Authrogen Technologies Vs. The Pcit, बनाम Chandigarh-1, Private Limited, Chandigarh C-203, 8Th Floor, World Tech Power, Industrial Area, Phase Viii, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadca0494Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri K M Gupta, Advocate & Shri Jaskaran Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri K M Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263(2)Section 68

section 263 of the Act, as the same is clarificatory in nature and does not dilute the basic requirement of the provisions of section 263(1) of the Act, to satisfy that the order is erroneous in law or facts, and that the same could only be invoked ... Supreme Court in CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. [1998] 98 Taxman 457/231 ITR 50, wherein it was held that jurisdiction under Section 263(1) of the Act is sought to be exercised with reference to an issue which is covered by the original 'order of assessment under Section

Sudarshan Bhagwandas Naval, Jalgaon vs. PCIT (Central Circle 1 Nagpur), Nagpur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 600/PUN/2024[AY 2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.600/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sudarshan Bhagwandas Vs. Pcit (Central), Nagpur. Naval, Naval Multispecialty Hospital, Near Bhaskar Market, Jilla Peth, M.J. College Road, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Aafpn7830C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Abhishek K. Choksy & Shri Ankit Davda Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19 Arises Against The Pcit (Central), Nagpur’S Order Dated 01.02.2024 Passed In Case No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1060387551(1) Involving Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek K. Choksy &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 263(1)

Products & Camphor Works (1998) 96 Taxmann 1, vide order dated 02-12-1997 has held that “Record, connotation of Word record used in section 263(1) would mean record as it stands at the time of examination by commissioner and not as it stands at the time of order passed ... assessment order erroneous. In that context the question which had arisen for consideration was whether the Commissioner, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 (1) of the Act could have relied upon the valuation report which had come into the possession of the Income-tax Officer subsequent to the completion

Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Chennai vs. DCIT Intl Tax 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1319/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 239Section 263

interpretation of Section 263of the Income Tax Act, it is observed and held that in order to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 263(1)of theIncome tax Act, the Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised ... prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It is further observed that if one of them is absent, recourse cannot be had to Section 263(1) of the Act. ***’. 27. Considering the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it can be safely concluded that inadequacy of enquiry by the AO with respect