“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

Ceigall India Limited, Ludhiana vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 540/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, CIT, DR(Virtual)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

since the hike in sales as well as expenses claimed by the assessee were part of reply filed by the assessee therefore, the revision u/s 263 on this issue is not called for. From perusal of assessment record and reply of the assessee, it is observed that ... assets was not liable to be disclosed under the head capital gains since the block of assets have not been exhausted. Thus, no revision u/s 263 in respect of the above issue is called for. However, from perusal of assessment record and reply ofthe assessee, it is observed that

Mohammedsaqib Aiyub Puthawala, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 623/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

revenue. 2.2 That the in the facts and circumstances of the ld. Pr. CIT ought not to have invoked the powers of revision u/s 263 and thereby holding that LTCG on sale of shares of KTL of Rs. 12,18,543/- was not genuine and the appellant was not entitled

Amber Enterprises India Limited, Rajpura, Punjab vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, Punjab

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 554/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, CIT, DR (Virtual)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 35Section 35(1)(i)

Twin conditions must  co-exist. CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108, Bom HC) – When AO makes  enquiries and takes a view, revision u/s 263 is not permissible. PCIT v. V-Con Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (P&H HC, 12.09.2024) – Mere  allegation of inadequate enquiry is not enough

Takdir Traders, Rajkot vs. The PCIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed”

ITA 383/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT DR

Section 147Section 263

appellant raised before him that the underlying order u/s 147 itself was bad in law and therefore it was not amenable to revision u/s 263 of the Act. 6.The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime up to the hearing of this appeal ... appellant raised before him that the underlying order u/s 147 itself was bad in law and therefore it was not amenable to revision u/s 263 of the Act. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime up to the hearing of this

Takdir Traders, Rajkot vs. The PCIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed”

ITA 380/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT DR

Section 147Section 263

Takdir Traders, Rajkot vs. The PCIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed”

ITA 378/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT DR

Section 147Section 263

Saurashtra Gramin Bank Manager (F & A), Rajkot vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Rajkot

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

ITA 37/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 37/Rjt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, Manager (F & A), Rajkot 1St Floor Wing 2, Lic Jeevan Prakash Building, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahas2116H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. A.D. Vyas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

above, a show cause notice dated 23/07/2021, was issued to the assessee, proposing to subject the assessment order of the assessing officer to revision u/s 263 of the Income tax Act. 10. In response to the above show cause notice, the assessee has submitted a detailed reply before learned PCIT

Precious Bjuildtech Private Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

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

ITA 66/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.66/Lkw/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Precious Buildtech Pvt Ltd V. Pcit Harmony Apartment, Adiacent Income Tax Department, To Bedi International School, Bareilly-243001. Dental College Road, Pilibhit Bypass Road, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aagcp1255R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Mazhar Akram, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24 07 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 09 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mazhar Akram, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

Assessing officer with total disregard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The CIT has failed to appreciate that powers of revision u/s 263 cannot be exercised for redoing the investigation, rather the CIT ought to have done Prive investigation himself before restoring the matter to the AO. Grounds

Nirmalkumar Agrawal HUF, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhandara

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Loya a/wFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

revenue within the meaning of Explanation 2(a) and 2(b) of section 263 of the Act and is required to be revised u/s 263 of the Act. Accordingly, in exercise of powers vested in me u/s 263 of the Act the above said reassessment order dated 24.03.2023 passed ... inquiry" and thus proceedings u/s 263 of the Act cannot be initiated. Further, an assessment order should not be subject to revision u/s 263 merely because another view is possible on the issue decided by the AO. We rely on following judgements including that of the Hon'ble Apex Court

Lic Mutual Fund Asset Management Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-1(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4246/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2022-23 Lic Mutual Fund Asset Dcit-1(2)(1), Management Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Industrial Assurance Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Building, Mumbai-400020. Opp: Churchgate Station, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aaacj1166H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Madhur Agrawal & Shri Ravikant Pathak For Revenue : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-1, [„Ld.Pcit‟], Dated 07-03- 2025, U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.The Hon'Ble Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-1 (Hereinafter Referred As Hon'Ble Pcit] Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") & Passing The Revision Order U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

been examined by the FAO. The order is hence erroneous and prejudicial to interests of revenue. This office hence considers it appropriate that revision u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 may be considered under this section. In this regard, a hearing in the matter is fixed

Venezia Golf City Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 26(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1962/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Sh.Vikash Jain, Sh.SumitFor Respondent: Ms.Rajinder Kaur, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 263

case of the assessee that an order which has been subject of approval u/s 153D cannot be subjected to revision u/s 263. In support of its contentions, the Ld.Counsel placed reliance upon decision of a coordinate bench of this tribunal in the case of Devender Kumar Gupta ... records. It is an undisputed fact on records that the order u/s 153C r.w.s 143(3) dated 30.03.2015 which is subject matter of revision u/s 263 by PCIT, Page 3 of 10 ITA No. 1962 / Del / 2019 & 3377/Del/2017 Central-1, New Delhi, was passed with the approval of Joint

M/S. Venezia Golf City Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (Central)-1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3377/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Sh.Vikash Jain, Sh.SumitFor Respondent: Ms.Rajinder Kaur, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 263

Jignesh Mahesh Gohel, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 41(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2708/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrijignesh Mahesh Gohel Dcit, Circle 41(2)(1), Shop No.4, Surya Prakash Vs. Mumbai Building, Ganesh Gavde Road, Room No. 831, Kautilya Mulund (W), Mumbai 400080 Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aarpg3795P (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri. Aditya Ramchandran /Revenue By: Shri Vivek Perampurna Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Pr. C.I.T., Mumbai -41 (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pcit"] Dated 26.03.2025 Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Aditya RamchandranFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 47

otherwise, on merits also, as the Ld. AO has issued notice u/s. 148 on the same issue which is the subject matter of revision u/s 263 by the PCIT. In this regard, a copy of the order u/s. 148A(d) dated 23.05.2022 has been placed on record from which

Zari Silk (India) Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 600/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 148BSection 263Section 69A

thus proceedings u/s 263 of the Act cannot be initiated in such a case. Further, an assessment order should not be subject to revision u/s 263 merely because another view is possible on the issue decided by the AO Following judgments including that of the Supreme Court has decided this ... amendment would have been made in explanation to section 263(1) also. Clearly meaning thereby, that the assessment completed r.w.s. 148B cannot be revised u/s 263. 4(i) Procedure for assessment in Search and Seizure cases : Procedure for assessment in Search and Seizure cases is provided in the Manual

Arun Palawat, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 599/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 148BSection 263Section 69A

Anil Kumar Batar, Sikar vs. PCIT-Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 263

without jurisdiction and invalid on the facts and legal position because the ld. Pr. CIT has right or jurisdiction of revision u/s 263 only when the order of the AO (i) is erroneous in so far as (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. S. 263 provides ... JaipurTrib In CIT v/s Jain Construction 257 CTR 336(Raj.) It has been held that Revision u/s 263-Order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue—CIT issued a notice u/s 263 to assessee on ground that assessment order of AO passed u/s 143 (3) was an order erroneous

Hardeep Singh Kandola, Ratia vs. ITO, Fatehabad

ITA 456/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Kumar (Advocate) a/w Shri LalitFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal (CIT) a/w Shri Vivek

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263

Accordingly, returned income of Rs.1.35 Lacs with agricultural income of Rs.26.83 Lacs was accepted by Ld. AO. 3. The assessment was subjected to revision u/s 263 by Ld. Pr. CIT on 12-03-2021 on the ground that the assessee did not furnish copies of J-Form and copy

Hardeep Singh Kandola, Ratia vs. ITO, Fatehabad

ITA 455/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Kumar (Advocate) a/w Shri LalitFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal (CIT) a/w Shri Vivek

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263

Bhanwarlal Champalal Kanunga, Unjha vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1040/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1040/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Bhanwarlal Champalal Kanunga, The Principal A-43, Old Gunj Bazar, बनाम/ Commissioner Of V/S. Apmc Market Yard, Income Tax, Main Line, Ahmedabad-3, Unjha-384170. Ahmedabad. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acmpk0172H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Parmanand Khatri, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Revisional Order Dated 27.03.2025 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit”] Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Whereby The Assessment Order Dated 23.09.2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Bhanwarlal Champalal Kanunga. Vs. Pcit Assessment Year 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Parmanand Khatri, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

Abad has grievously erred in law and or on facts in invoking the provisions of revision u/s 263 of the Act and holding that the order of original assessment passed u/s 143(3) on 23.09.2022 by AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue ... case, Id. Pr. CIT-3 A'bad has grievously erred in law and or on facts in invoking the provisions of revision u/s 263 of the Act by taking the base from A.Y.2017-18 without verifying the facts of the case of year under appeal was unjustified

Deputy Commissioner, Delhi vs. Ravindra Singh, Greater Noida

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 2459/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

Section 132Section 153ASection 156Section 69Section 69A

made any addition on account of share capital/ share application money received by the appellant. It has been informed that there was no revision u/s 263 against the assessment orders dated 30.03.2015 of either the appellant or the nine companies. 20. The issue of receipt of share application money therefore