“revision u/s 263”

Rectification & RevisionSection 263Section 263521 judgments

The decision most relied on for revision u/s 263 is CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan (384 ITR 200), cited in 264 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on revision u/s 263

CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan

384 ITR 200 · 2016 · Supreme Court

264

citing judgments

The Commissioner's revisional power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act is not limited to the points specified in the show-cause notice, nor is the exercise of this power contingent upon issuing a show-cause notice.

Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT

321 ITR 92 · 2010 · High Court

194

citing judgments

This case clarifies the scope of the Commissioner's revisional powers under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, holding that an assessment order can only be revised if it is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, echoing the principles laid down in Malabar Industrial.

CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works Ltd.

309 ITR 67 · 2009 · High Court

149

citing judgments

An assessment order is not erroneous or prejudicial under Section 263 merely because it is silent on a claim or lacks explicit reasons for its acceptance. Revision under Section 263 is impermissible if the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view, even if the PCIT holds a different opinion.

Babulal C. Borana v. ITO

282 ITR 251 · 2006 · High Court

138

citing judgments

An assessment order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, justifying revision under Section 263, if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct proper inquiries or apply his mind to relevant issues, such as the genuineness of purchases when corresponding sales are accepted, often leading to a remand for fresh adjudication.

CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee

341 ITR 434 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous for the purpose of Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to apply mind to relevant material, proceeds on an incorrect assumption of facts, or makes an incorrect application of law.

CIT v. Vodafone Essar South Ltd.

212 Taxmann 184 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

When an Assessing Officer conducts an inquiry and considers the assessee's disclosures, the Commissioner cannot invoke Section 263 to revise the assessment on grounds of inadequate inquiry or a mere difference of opinion. The absence of a detailed discussion on an issue in the assessment order does not automatically mean the Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat-2 v. Shreeji Prints (P.) Ltd.

130 Taxmann.com 294 · 2021 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

A plausible view taken by the Assessing Officer, after due enquiry and verification, does not render an assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the purpose of revision under Section 263, thereby limiting the scope of revisional powers.

Income-Tax v. Gokuldas Exports

333 ITR 214 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessment order is not considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for invoking Section 263 if the Assessing Officer has adopted one of two possible views, even if the Commissioner of Income-tax disagrees with that view. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' must be read in conjunction with the expression 'erroneous'.

Judgments citing revision u/s 263

Aqua Tech Solutions Private Limited, Pune vs. PCIT (Central)-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3855/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Acccountant Member

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan &For Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 801A(4)

assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 17.05.2021 after complete scrutiny under CASS, with reference to which, the limitation for revision u/s 263 already expired on 31.03.2024. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the revision u/s 263

Laxman Kanaiyalal Dharmani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(2)(6), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5675/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan Kakkad, AR

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

facts and circumstances of the case and therefore we hold that the assessment order, subjected to revision u/s 263, is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed u/s 263

Ubs Business Solutions (India) Private Limited (Successor to Credit Suisse Services (India) Pvt Ltd), Pune vs. PCIT, Pune - 1, Pune, Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1407/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1407/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ubs Business Solutions (India) V The Principal Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Credit S. Commissioner Of Suisse Services (India) Pvt Income Tax, Ltd.), Pune-1. Cluster A, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, S.No.77, Ground To 5Th Floors In Wing 1, 3Rd To 5Th Floor In Wing 2, Kharadi Midc Knowledge Park, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabcu8718M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal - Ar Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 31.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 144B

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80G

taken a plausible view of holding it as revenue expense, the assessment order cannot be held as erroneous and prejudicial to call for revision U/s 263. (c) Without prejudice to above, the appellant had submitted detailed note on repairs and maintenance expenses indicating nature of expenses incurred claiming ... case of lack of enquiry but case of inadequate enquiry. The said 8 ITA No.1224/PUN/2025 [A] case cannot be taken a for revision U/s 263 by invoking explanation 2 of section 263(1). 20. The Ld. PCIT has pointed out thatexpenses on computer peripherals and Mat under furniture need

Sonali Mahendra Naik Gaunekar, Panaji vs. Asst. Unit, NFAC, I. T. Department, Delhi

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 312/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Naveen Kumar [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(1)Section 263Section 50CSection 50C(1)

NFAC that, the order of assessment challenged before him u/s 246A of the Act for the AY 2016 was subjected to revision u/s 263 of the Act by the Ld. PCIT and by order dt. 19/02/2024 framed thereunder the said assessment order has been set-aside to the file

Atul Jindal, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. DCIT Circle-6 Ldh Current Jao ITO, Ward-1(5), Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 377/CHANDI/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: This Tribunal. 3. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Import & Trading Of Copper-Based Products Through His Proprietorship Concern, Usha Impex. The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income On 29.09.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.42,83,680/-.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

income was assessed at Rs.45,36,066/- after making a small disallowance of Rs.2,52,386/-. This assessment was later subjected to revision u/s 263 by the Pr. CIT-3, Ludhiana on 25.03.2019, on the ground that the sundry creditor appearing in the assessee’s balance sheet to the tune

M/S. Bannariamman Educational Trust, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, CC-3(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1379/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

assessment was completed on the basis of seized materials and other various details submitted by the Trust. 4. The proposed revision u/s 263 is barred by limitation, as the Original assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act passed on 25.10.2017 and the limitation date to pass order u/s 263 ... order was erroneous and ITA Nos.1378 & 1379/Chny/2025 (AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17) M/s.Bannari Amman Educational Trust :: 7 :: therefore, liable for revision u/s 263 of the Act. The said findings of the Ld Pr. CIT have been seriously contested by the assessee challenging the jurisdiction of the Ld.PCIT to have invoked

Bannariamman Educational Trust, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1378/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2933/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

Bathroom) and otherwise invalid (without proper DIN) final assessment order dated 31 January 2023, cannot be indirectly & unlawfully revived in the garb of revision u/s 263. 3. Impugned order erred in not appreciating that huge adjustments made to returned income in Assessment order u/ 143(3) emphatically disprove allegation that ... interest on refund is already taxed by the Ld. AO and the matter is pending before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15. Revision u/s 263 of the same issue cannot be done again in the relevant assessment year. 8. Predetermined and arbitrary approach adopted in impugned order stares

Chandra Panneerselvam, Vellore vs. PCIT., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 91/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.91/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Chandra Pannerselvam, Principal Commissioner Of Income No.2/2, Old Munsif Court Street, Tax, Saidapet, Vellure, Circle-1, Tamil Nadu - 632 012. Vellore. [Pan: Aahpp9253B] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.N.Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

satisfied and l hold that the assessment Order dated 26.12.2017 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act is to be subjected to revision u/s 263. Hence, the Assessment Order is hereby set aside witha direction to examine the aspect discussed in the body of the order (supra) and pass

Vandana Jain, Sonipat vs. PCIT(Central)-1, Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2343/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2341 To 2343/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-20 बनाम Vandana Jain Pcit (Central), Veersons Building, Gohana Road, Vs. Delhi-1. Fazilpur B.O. Barwasni (202), Sonipat, Haryana, India. Pan No.Aampj6134E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 154Section 234ASection 263Section 68

That the re-computation of interest u/s 234A may at most be a matter of rectification u/s 154 of the Act, not of revision u/s 263 of the Act. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.” 2. Ld. Counsel

Vandana Jain, Sonipat vs. PCIT(Central)-1, Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2342/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Section 154Section 234ASection 263Section 68

Vandana Jain, Sonipat vs. PCIT(Central)-1, Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2341/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Section 154Section 234ASection 263Section 68

Jayvadan Amratlal Rughnathwala, Surat vs. PCIT-1, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 348/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.348/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Jayvadan Amratlal Rughnathwala, Vs. The Pcit - 1, 6/7, Khatodara Ind Service Society, Surat B/H Sub Jail Khatodara, Surat – 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpr4348L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 26/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

Section 115BSection 139Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 69C

longer exists. Once the original assessment order has been set aside by the Tribunal, there remains no order which can be subjected to revision u/s 263 of the Act. Section 263 presupposes the existence of a valid and operative order, which is both “erroneous” and “prejudicial to the interests

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1556/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee. Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order has attained finality as the said order has not been subject matter of revision u/s 263 of the Act which proved that the assessee is not a shell company. Id. AR further submitted that the assessment for the assessment year

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1555/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee. Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order has attained finality as the said order has not been subject matter of revision u/s 263 of the Act which proved that the assessee is not a shell company. ld. AR further submitted that the assessment for the assessment year

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1554/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee. Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order has attained finality as the said order has not been subject matter of revision u/s 263 of the Act which proved that the assessee is not a shell company. ld. AR further submitted that the assessment for the assessment year

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six

ITA 1553/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1552/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee. Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order has attained finality as the said order has not been subject matter of revision u/s 263 of the Act which proved that the assessee is not a shell company. ld. AR further submitted that the assessment for the assessment year

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1551/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee. Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order has attained finality as the said order has not been subject matter of revision u/s 263 of the Act which proved that the assessee is not a shell company. ld. AR further submitted that the assessment for the assessment year

Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1368/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee. Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order has attained finality as the said order has not been subject matter of revision u/s 263 of the Act which proved that the assessee is not a shell company. ld. AR further submitted that the assessment for the assessment year