← All Phrases

“revision under section 263”

Rectification & RevisionSection 263Section 263558 judgments

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

Leading authorities on revision under section 263

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.

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.

Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO
106 ITR 1 · 1977 · Supreme Court
486
citing judgments

The principle of finality dictates that stale issues should not be reactivated, and lapse of time brings repose to judicial and quasi-judicial controversies. A Commissioner cannot substitute their judgment for the Assessing Officer's unless the assessment order is legally erroneous, not merely less elaborate, thus limiting revisionary powers under Section 263.

CIT v. Vikas Polymers
341 ITR 537 · 2012 · High Court
318
citing judgments

An assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial under Section 263 merely because the Assessing Officer did not record an enquiry and its satisfactory answer in the assessment order, provided such an enquiry was conducted. For revision under Section 263, the Commissioner must also provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard and examine their explanation.

Judgments citing revision under section 263

Vijay Rajnikant Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 409/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Gattani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

passed under Section 143(3) of the Act being under limited scrutiny. In that event the powers of the Ld. PCIT for revision under Section 263 of the Act would be limited to the issues which has been considered in the limited scrutiny assessment only and the revisional powers cannot ... which the assessing officer himself could not look into under the limited scrutiny proceeding. In other words the powers of the PCIT for revision under Section 263 of the Act would be limited to the issues which has been considered in the limited scrutiny assessment; the revisionary powers under Section

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 738/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, advFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 263Section 36(1)Section 48

subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A) 56, Mumbai filed by the Bank and hence do not come within the purview of revision under section 263. We reiterate that the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial and the proceedings under section

Pawan Kumar, Fatehabad vs. Prcit, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1655/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Pawan Kumar Vs. Prcit, Near Aggarsain Chowk, Rohtak Prince Plywood Home, Fuwara Chowk, Fatehabad, Haryana 125050 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surajbhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 203Section 263Section 28

assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act dated 22.01.2021 was not amenable to revision under section 263 of the Act. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT erred in exercising jurisdiction ... section 10(37) of the Act is not contrary to law. His assessment order is, therefore, not erroneous and not liable to be revised under section 263 of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT-DR supported the order of the Ld. PCIT. He placed on record a copy

Vaaan Infra Private Limited, Haryana vs. Pr, CIT Delhi-7, Delhi

ITA 1102/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: PCIT, Delhi-9, however the order passed by Hon'ble PCIT, Delhi-7 on 30.03.2021.

Section 263Section 56(2)(vib)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 56(25)(viib)

passed by Hon'ble PCIT, Delhi-7 on 30.03.2021. 4. Mere change of opinion without satisfying twin conditions can't give rise to revision under section 263 of the Act. 4.1 That the order passed under section 263 of the Act by the Hon'ble PCIT is illegal and arbitrary

Ambicaa Sales Corporation, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Bengaluru - 5, Bengaluru

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

ITA 726/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43

considered the issue in depth during the Original Assessment proceedings and specific queries had been raised on the transactions (which were under revision under section 263 of the Act) and in response to the same the Appellant had provided all the details as called for. 5. The Ld. CIT failed

Comstar Mauritius Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (It) Mumbai-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1529/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Comstar Mauritius Limited Cit (It), Agarwal Vijay & Associates, 503, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, Jolly Bhavan, No.1, New Marine Vs. Nariman Point, Lines, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagcc1225Q

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

based on several circulars and Comstar Mauritius Ltd; A.Y. 2018-19 press release of CBDT and therefore, such a case the jurisdiction of revision under Section 263 of the Act does not exist. 019. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of assessing authority as well

Vg Rajamani Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. PCIT-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner dated 14

ITA 812/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.812/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. V.G. Rajamani Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-1 बनाम/ Vs. 66, Subbiah Mudaliar Street, Coimbatore. Thomas Street, Coimbatore-641 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcv-1589-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode - Ld.Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263

erroneous, it cannot be stated to be prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as every erroneous order cannot be subject matter of Revision under Section 263 of the Act. Further more, if the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act as confirmed by the Tribunal

Golden Vats Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner dated 14

ITA 416/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.416/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Golden Vats Private Limited Acit बनाम New No.272, 3Rd Floor, Central Circle-3(2), Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Chennai. / Vs. Gopalapuram , Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg-9782-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman (FCA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 263Section 263(1)Section 3Section 40

erroneous, it cannot be stated to be prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as every erroneous order cannot be subject matter of Revision under Section 263 of the Act. Further more, if the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act as confirmed by the Tribunal

Anju Ahuja, New Delhi vs. PCIT Circle 49(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 273/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kanwar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

order if he considers the same to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Pr.CIT can take recourse to revision under Section 263 of the Act where the assessment order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The twin conditions are required

Shri Jay Khodiyar Majoor S M Ltd., at Chhalanka, Tal. Visavadar, Dist. Junagadh vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee dismissed

ITA 178/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

validity of legality of notice of 263 order passed by Ld. PCIT on the ground that the scope of the first notice for revision under Section 263 of the Act cannot be enhanced by way of issuance of subsequent notice by Principal CIT. 4. The brief facts of the case

Sh. Ashok Kumar Porwal, Jhalawar vs. JCIT, Range-1, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 572/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 269SSection 271D

Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever is later; (b) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of revision under section 263 or section 264, after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of revision is passed ... section 253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty

Jayem Realty Management Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principle Comm. of Income Tax-1, Mumbai

ITA 2216/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejayam Realty Management Pvt Ltd., V. Pr.Cit Recondo Compound Room No. 330, 3Rd Floor Inside Municipal Asphalt Compound Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400030 Pan: Aaccj0004G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya & Shri Himanshu Gandhi Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

whereas the year under consideration is AY 2010-11. Thus, the Ld. AO rightly applied the provision of law and not required revision under section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds of appeal

Zenzi Pharmaceutical Industies Pvt Ltd., Mumbai City vs. CIT (Transfer Pricing)-4, Mumbai City

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2005/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perumpura
Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271BSection 68Section 92C

section 263 of the income tax act and submitted that any order passed by the learned transfer-pricing officer is subject to revision under section 263 of the income tax act with effect from 1/4/2022. Therefore, any order passed after that date could only be revised by the learned principal

Zenzi Pharmaceutical Industies Pvt Ltd., Mumbai City vs. CIT (Transfer Pricing)-4, Mumbai City

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2004/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perumpura
Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271BSection 68Section 92C

section 263 of the income tax act and submitted that any order passed by the learned transfer-pricing officer is subject to revision under section 263 of the income tax act with effect from 1/4/2022. Therefore, any order passed after that date could only be revised by the learned principal

Zenzi Pharmaceutical Industies Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (Transfer Pricing)-4, Mumbai

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2003/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perumpura
Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271BSection 68Section 92C

section 263 of the income tax act and submitted that any order passed by the learned transfer-pricing officer is subject to revision under section 263 of the income tax act with effect from 1/4/2022. Therefore, any order passed after that date could only be revised by the learned principal

Zenzi Pharmaceutical Industies Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (Transfer Pricing)-4, Mumbai

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2002/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perumpura
Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271BSection 68Section 92C

section 263 of the income tax act and submitted that any order passed by the learned transfer-pricing officer is subject to revision under section 263 of the income tax act with effect from 1/4/2022. Therefore, any order passed after that date could only be revised by the learned principal

Jaydeep Construction, Mumbai vs. PCIT-41, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed with the above observations

ITA 2086/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejaydeep Construction V. Pr. Cit -41 Shop No. 07/08, Patidar Complex Room No. 541, Kautilya Bhavan C-41 To C-43, G Block Kannamwar Nagar, Vikroli (E) Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400083 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aaffj0346M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43CSection 54

learned PCIT") erred in concluding that the assessment order dated 27.02.2021 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue requiring the revision under section 263 of the Act. The revision made by the learned PCIT is illegal and without jurisdiction and thus, the order dated 31.03.2023 passed

Sunil Dandriyal, Dehradun vs. JCIT, Central Range, Meerut

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8070/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 246Section 246ASection 253Section 263Section 264Section 269SSection 271DSection 275(1)

Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever is later;] (b) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of revision under section 263 21[or section 264], after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of revision

Sunil Dandrayal, Dehradun vs. JCIT, Central Range, Meerut

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8069/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 246Section 246ASection 253Section 263Section 264Section 269SSection 271DSection 275(1)

Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever is later;] (b) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of revision under section 263 21[or section 264], after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of revision

Harmony Yarns Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 348/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.348/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Harmony Yarns Private Vs. The Pcit-1, Limited, Surat Plot-65, 1St Floor Subhash Nagar Society, Ghod Dod Road, Nr. Ram Chowk, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach5895F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Airiju Jaikaran, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/10/2023 23/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

income - Case was selected for scrutiny and an assessment order was passed under section 143(3) making certain addition - Subsequently, Pr. Commissioner invoked revision under section 263 on ground that Assessing Officer had not examined issue related to advance of certain amount given by assessee to one AIP and also ... conclusion regarding advances and commission payments in question though it was not mentioned explicitly in assessment order -Whether, on facts, impugned invocation of revision under section 263 was unjustified - Held, yes [Paras 10,11,16 and 17] [in favour of assesses]” 15. Reliance is also placed on the recent judgement