← 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

M/S.Karannur Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kozhikkode vs. The ITO, WD-1(2), Kozhikkode

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri P. Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjith K. Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271DSection 273BSection 274Section 275(1)(c)Section 80P(1)

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

The Karannur Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kozhikkode vs. The ITO, WD-1(2), Kozhikkode

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 248/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri P. Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjith K. Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271DSection 273BSection 274Section 275(1)(c)Section 80P(1)

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

Cabot Technology Solution Private Limited, Kochi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed of on the afore-stated terms

ITA 609/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dascabot Technology Solutions Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax – 1 204, 2Nd Floor, Lulu Cyber Tower Vs. Cr Building , Is Press Infopark, Kochi 682042 Road, Kochi 682018 [Pan:Aadcc 9320K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Allen Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Revision Of It’S Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 20.12.2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Act (Pr. Cit), Vide His Order Dated 18.01.2022. 2.1 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Company In Software Development Business, Returned, For The Relevant Year, An Income Of Rs.3,67,574 Under The Regular Provisions Of The Act & A Book-Profit Of Rs.14,33,474 U/S.115Jb Of The Act, Paying The Higher Tax On The Latter. The Same Was Subject To Regular Assessment, Determining The Income Under The Regular Provisions At Rs. 8,10,750 & At The Returned Book-Profit Under Mat Provisions. The Assessment Record Was Subsequently Examined By The Learned Pr. Cit In Exercise Of His Revisionary

For Appellant: Shri Allen Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT- D.R
Section 10ASection 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

making enquiry or verification which should have been made, is deemed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, liable for revision under section 263 of the Act. Page 2 ITANo. 609/Coch/ 2022 (AY 2017-18) Cabot Technology Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs Pr. CIT 3.2 The limited issue

Hi-Shine Inks Pvt. Ltd., Na vs. Arivs.the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 358/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.358/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Hi-Shine Inks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit, 208, Gidc Estate, Antalia, Valsad Tal: Gandevi, Dist: Navsari – 396325. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacu2926J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, Ca Respondent By Shri S. M. Keshkamat, Cit(Dr) 14/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16/10/2023

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

unlike the power of reopening an ITA No.358/SRT/2023/AY.2018-19 Hi-Shine Inks Pvt. Ltd. assessment under Section 147 of the Act, the power of revision under Section 263 is not contingent on the giving of a notice to show cause. In fact, Section 263 has been understood not to require

ITO, TDS-2, Jodhpur vs. Rajendra Kumbhat, HUF, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenuebearing ITA No

ITA 34/JODH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 246Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271CSection 274Section 275(1)(c)

I.T.A. No.34/Jodh/2020 5 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (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

The Lake Palace Hotels & Motelsprivate Limited, Udaipur vs. PCIT, Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 52/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

263. (iv) CIT vis. Raisons Industries Ltd., 288 ITR 322 (SC): The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-" The power of revision under section 263 is exercised by a higher authority. It is a special provision. The revisional jurisdiction is vested in the Commissioner. An order there under

Gillette India Limited, Spa-65A, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, District- Alwar vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 313/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. ParwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194Section 195Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

facts and an incorrect application of mind to the law which is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence liable for revision under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Limited

A3Logics (India) Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40a

mind to relevant material and an incorrect assumption of facts which is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence liable for revision under section 263 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Limited V/S CIT 243 ITR it has held

Shri Hemrajsinh Kiransinh Rathod, Dadra & Nagar Haveli vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 239/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.239/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Hearing) Hemrajsinh Kiransinh Rathod, Vs. The Pcit, Krishna Petroleum, Iocl Dealer, Valsad Near Jalaram Temple, Waghdhara Road, Village Dadra - 396193, Ut Of Dadra & Nagar Haveli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aihpr4957N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 14/08/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2023

Section 143(3)Section 263

examine the other issue, namely, the issue of “addition of fixed assets”. The “addition of fixed assets” was not the subject matter of revision under section 263 of the Act. However, ld PCIT has directed the assessing officer to examine other issue namely, “addition of fixed assets” without giving opportunities ... examine the other issue, namely, the issue of “addition of fixed assets”. The “addition of fixed assets” was not the subject matter of revision under section 263 of the Act. If the ld PCIT wants to exercise his jurisdiction on other items then in that circumstances, the minimum expectation

Smt. Jaya Mogra, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 333/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Sept 2023AY 2009-10
Section 127Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

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

Gayatri Devi, Jaipur vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 405/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

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 assessee]” 2.5 In the case of Meerut Roller Flour Mills

M/S Kepco Plant Service & Engineering Co Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT (International Taxation)- 3(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 886/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Rahul YadavFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Treaty to the Appellant in respect of Operation & Maintenance receipts remitted directly to the Head Office outside India while exercising powers of revision under Section 263 of the Act. Countering the aforesaid submissions, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the issue before the Tribunal in the decision cited

Santosh Jain, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 148/RPR/2023[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Sept 2023AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 144, 146 & 148/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96 Santosh Jain Opp. P.N Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Afypj6194D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

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

Santosh Jain, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 146/RPR/2023[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Sept 2023AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 144, 146 & 148/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96 Santosh Jain Opp. P.N Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Afypj6194D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

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

Santosh Jain, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 144/RPR/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Sept 2023AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 144, 146 & 148/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96 Santosh Jain Opp. P.N Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Afypj6194D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

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

Apm Industries Ltd, Bhiwadi, Alwar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 203/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 203/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 APM Industries Ltd. SP-147, Industrial Area Bhiwadi, Alwar cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-01, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCA 5114 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a l

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. PoddarFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 263Section 40Section 40A(7)

mind to relevant material and an incorrect assumption of facts which is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence liable for revision under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Limited

M/S Eternal Heart Care Centre & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd., 3A, Jagatpura Road, Near Jawahar Circle, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 263/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271A

reported in 133 ITR 7, whereby the High Court, on a reference, held that the Commissioner in a suo motu revision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of an assessment proceeding, was not entitled to set aside the assessment order on the ground that there

Bombardier Transportation Signal (Thailand) Limited, Thailand vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 726/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Anubhav Rastogi, &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 263Section 90(2)

therefore, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Assessee filed its objections for revision under section 263 of the Act as under:- “Assessee is a company registered and incorporated under the laws of Thailand, with its head office located

Bombardier Transportation Signal (Thailand ) Limited, Thailand vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2) Int. Taxation, Delhi

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2193/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Anubhav Rastogi, &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 263Section 90(2)

therefore, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Assessee filed its objections for revision under section 263 of the Act as under:- “Assessee is a company registered and incorporated under the laws of Thailand, with its head office located

Bombardier Transportation Signal (Thailand ) Limited, Thailand vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(2) Int. Taxation, Delhi

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2192/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Anubhav Rastogi, &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 263Section 90(2)

therefore, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Assessee filed its objections for revision under section 263 of the Act as under:- “Assessee is a company registered and incorporated under the laws of Thailand, with its head office located