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

Prasanta Kumar Mohapatra, Keonjhar vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 113/CTK/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack05 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.113/Ctk/2021 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Prasanta Kumar Mohapatra, Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Mining Road, New Market, Keonjhar, Odisha Pan No. :Aavpm 9636 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/09/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Dated 25.08.2021, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1035100447(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That, The Ld Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Committed Serious Error In Modify The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Ld Assessing Officer Which Is Unjust, Illegal, Arbitrary, Without Jurisdiction, Contrary To The Provisions F The Act, Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Has Been Made In Gross Violation To The Principles Of Natural Justice & Is Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Annulled. 2. That, The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Sambalpur Has Erred Both In Law & In Fact By Invoking The Section 263 Of The Act Which Is Beyond The Jurisdiction Vested With The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax & For Which The Order Thereof Is Liable To Be Quashed & / Or Annulled. 3. That, The Ld Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred Both In Law & In Fact By Invoking The Section 263 Of The Act Which Is Beyond The Scope Of Power Vested With The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax & For Which The Order There Off Is Liable To Be Quashed & / Or Annulled.

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

Shri Shamlaji Aarogya Seva Trust, Godhra vs. The Pr. CIT (Central), Surat at -Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 138/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.138/Ahd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Shamlaji Aarogya Seva Trust The Pr.Cit (Central) बनाम/ Kanelav Road Surat At Vadodara Dhahod Road V/S. Godhra – 389 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04 /09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Surat [Hereinafter Referred To As "Pcit"] Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Wherein The Pcit Held That The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 16.11.2019, Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interests Of

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Western India Cashew Company Private Limited, R. P. Towers vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore

ITA 859/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.859/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Western India Cashew Company The Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, No.88, Rp Towers, Coimbatore - 1. Coimbatore Road, Pollachi - 642 002. [Pan: Aaacw 3202B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G. Surendarnath Rao, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore-1 (Hereinafter “Pcit”] In Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023- 24/1060503232(1), Dated 05.02.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2020-21 U/S.143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The 'Act'), Vide Order Dated 06.09.2022.

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendarnath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

Posco India Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 253/CTK/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.253/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2020-2021) Posco India Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar Unit No.Dcb 903, 9Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Idco Info Park, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Patia Bhubaneswar-751024 Pan No. :Aadcp 6735 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mahapatra & A.K.Sabat, Cas राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/09/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit, Bhubaneswar-1, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1063289089(1) For The Assessment Year 2020-2021, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances The Case, The Order Passed On 24.03.2024 U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short "I.T.Act "I "Act"] Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Bhubaneswar [In Short "Pcit"] [Vide Din & Order No :Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1063289089(1)}, In Directing The Learned Assessing Officer [In Short "Ao"] To Examine The Issue Is Against The Principle Of Natural Justice, Contrary To Facts, Arbitrary & Erroneous & Bad, Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts & Legally Untenable. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances The Case, The. Notice Dated 05.02.2024 U/S.263 Of The Act & The Assuming Of Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act By The Learned Pcit Is Contrary To Facts, Arbitrary, Erroneous & Bad, Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts & Legally Untenable.

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra & A.K.Sabat, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263