Section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.377

Section 263(1) falls under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 377 (Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 377 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 263(1) is Vedanta Ltd. v. CIT (124 Taxmann.com 435), cited in 35 of the 52 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 263(1)

Vedanta Ltd. v. CIT
124 Taxmann.com 435 · 2021 · High Court
35
citing judgments

A revision under section 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax requires both an assessment order that is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Principal Commissioner must demonstrate a lack of inquiry or inadequate investigation by the Assessing Officer.

PCIT v. Zuari Maroc Phosphates Ltd.
126 Taxmann.com 170 · 2021 · High Court
9
citing judgments
CIT(E) v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority
107 Taxmann.com 18 · 2019 · High Court
3
citing judgments
CIT, Mumbai v. Chandan Magraj Parmar
135 Taxmann.com 55 · 2022 · High Court
3
citing judgments
CIT v. Nirma Chemicals Works (P.) Ltd.
182 Taxmann.com 183 · 2009 · High Court
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 263(1)

The ACIT, Circle-2(2), Baroda vs. M/S. Pratham Developers, Baroda

ITA 2000/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Milind Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H.V. Gurjar, CIT-D.R
Section 143(2)Section 801Section 80I

Eveready Industries India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 655/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 30Section 35Section 35DSection 36(1)(iv)Section 37

Shri Nagindas Chunilal Sanghvi (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 968/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 968/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Respondent: Shri O. P. Sharma, CIT.D.R

Jain International Trade Organisation, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions)

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

ITA 626/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 12ASection 263Section 263(1)

Dr. Shailesh Kothalkar, Nagpur vs. ACIT-Central Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result; the appeal filed by the assessee i8 allowed Order pronounced in the open court on O84h March, 2018

ITA 101/NAG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sf: G.D.Agrawal, Hon'Ble & Sh. Mahavir Singhiano1Qnag/2014 (Axzeexment Yeari 2007_-081 Dr Shailesh Kothalkar; Vs Actt, Bkkardara Chowk, Central Cirele-3, Nagpur-440009. 3Rd Floor Saraf Chambers, Pan-Ahxpk13Izm Sadar_Nagpur 444001, [Apeellaat (Regpondent) Eepellant By Sh,Prgandhi; Adv Respondeat By Dr Milind Bhuaani, Cit Dr Date Oihearing 08.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 08,03.2018 Nag7# Order Per Bench This Appeal By Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Arder Of Ld,Citia}-1, Nagpur Vide Order No.Citia}-1/677/2011-12 Dated 26.12.2013. The Asgessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-3, Nagpur U/S 143(3) R.W.8 263(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short Act"| For A.Y. 2007-08 Vide His Order Dated 26.12.2011, 2 The Only Issue In This Appeal Of A88E88Ee'$ Is Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer On Estimate Basis On The Receipts By Him From Indoor/Outdoor Patients 3 Brief Facts Relating To The Issue Are That The Assessee Is Ent Doctor & Derives Income From Profession & Income From Other Sourceg. A Survey Under Section 1334 Of The Act Wa8 Conducted On The Hospitel Of The Assessee On 14.09.2006. During The Course Of Survey, Certain Documents Were Found & Examined By The Assessing Officer; The Assessing Oficer Noted The Details Of Opd Patients; Indoor Patients & Estimated The Total Indoor & Outdoor

For Appellant: Aggrieved the before Ld.CIT(A) who restricted the addition by assessee prelerr
Section 133Section 143(3)

Jasbir Singh, Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1747/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Shri Jasbir Singh Vs. The Ito S/O Bir Singh Ward 3 C/O Sushil Bhushan Gupta, Advocate Karnal 3168, Shakti Colony, The Mall Karnal (Pan: Cmpps 6937 M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri SK.L. Aneja, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 263(1)

Gandhi College of Pharmacy, Karnal vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3476/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. C. M. Garg, Jm Ita No. 3476/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Gandhi College Of Pharmacy, Vs Acit, Near Iti Chowk, G. T. Road, Circle, Karnal Karnal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatg5629D Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Ashish Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.03.2012 Of Ld. Cit(A), Karnal. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts. 2(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Action Of A.O. In Holding That The Assesses Is Not Eligible For Exemption Under Section 10(23C)(Iiiad) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., & Ashish Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 139Section 143(3)Section 2(31)Section 263(1)

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Hisar vs. R.S. Sangwan

ITA/361/2015HC Punjab & Haryana03 Dec 2015

Bench: The Hon'Ble High Court Against Gurbachan Singh 2016.01.07 16:03 I Attest To The Accuracy & Authenticity Of This Document High Court Chandigarh

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 263(1)

CIT, Panchkula vs. Rani Shakuntla Devi, Panchkula

The appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/955/2008HC Punjab & Haryana27 Oct 2010
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 260ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 45(5)Section 45(5)(c)

Dabur India Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/481/2009HC Delhi19 Aug 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

Section 115JSection 143Section 263Section 43ASection 80

Mahavir Prasad vs. Income Tax Officer

ITA/70/2008HC Punjab & Haryana01 Feb 2008
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 263Section 271

Commissioner of Fncome Tax, Bangalore vs. Shree Man.Junathesware Packing Products and Camphor Works

CIVIL APPEAL No. 8467/1997Supreme Court02 Dec 1997

Bench: The Date Of Completion Of The Assessment. The Ito, Therefore, Without Waiting For The Dvo'S Report, Passed An Order Of Assessment Accepting The Valuation Mentioned By The Assessee In Its Return. The Dvo Determined The Cost Of Construction At An H 109

Section 263Section 263(1)