← All Phrases

“Section 263(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 263Section 263(3)24 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 263(3) is Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83), cited in 2,943 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 263(3)

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.

Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO
322 ITR 283 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,283
citing judgments

The interest income earned by a cooperative society from investing its surplus funds in fixed deposits with banks is not "derived from" its eligible business activities and is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, thus not qualifying for deduction under Section 80P.

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.

State Bank Of India v. CIT
389 ITR 578 · 2016 · High Court
817
citing judgments

Income arising from a cooperative society's surplus funds invested in short-term deposits and securities is not attributable to the society's core activities and, therefore, is not eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

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.

Judgments citing Section 263(3)

M/S Intent Infraprojects Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 38/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.38/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Intent Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd.….............………....……………....Appellant 4/8, Chinar Park Athghora, 24 Parganas South, Kolkata – 700157. [Pan: Aacci8387B] Vs. Ito, Ward-7(3), Kolkata.…………....................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 04, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.04.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Earlier, The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Being Barred By Limitation By 927 Days Vide Order Dated 24.01.2023 Of The Tribunal. The Assessee Preferred Appeal Before The Hon’Ble High Court Against The Aforesaid Dismissal, However, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Order Dated 22.01.2024 Passed In Itat/2011/2023 Allowed The Appeal & Condoned The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before This Tribunal Subject To The Conditions That The Appellant/Assessee Would Pay A Sum Of Rs.5 Lakhs To The West Bengal Legal Services Authority. Thereafter, The

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘बी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri