Section 263 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.377

Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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 is Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83), cited in 2,943 of the 13,616 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on 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.

Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO
322 ITR 283 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,283
citing judgments

The interest income earned by a cooperative society from investing its surplus funds in fixed deposits with banks is not "derived from" its eligible business activities and is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, thus not qualifying for deduction under Section 80P.

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.

State Bank Of India v. CIT
389 ITR 578 · 2016 · High Court
817
citing judgments

Income arising from a cooperative society's surplus funds invested in short-term deposits and securities is not attributable to the society's core activities and, therefore, is not eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

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.

Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT
225 ITR 802 · 1997 · Supreme Court
568
citing judgments

Expenditure that provides an enduring benefit should be amortized over its useful life, not allowed as a deduction in a single year, to prevent a distorted picture of profits. Specifically, premium paid on debentures for their issue should be amortized on a straight-line method over the life of the debentures.

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.

Subramanian and Anr. v. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr.
156 ITR 11 · 1985 · High Court
541
citing judgments

When there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts, the view that favors the assessee should be preferred.

Judgments on Section 263

Rajeswar Thakur, Bhawanipatna vs. Asstt.CIT, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 143/CTK/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.143 & 144/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2012-2013 & 2014-2015) Rajeswar Thakur Vs Acit, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur Pardeshpada, Near Balaji Temple Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi-766001 Pan No. :Aaspt 7155 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Nishant Rao B, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Both Dated 27.12.2024 For Assessment Years 2012-2013 & 2014-2015. 2. In This Appeal, It Was The Submission Of The Ld. Ar That The Original Return Of The Assessee Was Filed On 27.09.2012, The Same Was Processed & The Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 26.02.2015 Wherein Certain Additions Have Been Made. In The Assessment Order Under The Headnote “Not For The Assessee”, The Assessing Officer Has Mentioned As Follows :- 3. It Was The Submission That Subsequently On 05.12.2019, The Assessment Was Proposed To Be Reopened With The Following Reasons :-

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Rao B, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263