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

Snehasish Bhaumik, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 50(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1429/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1429/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Snehasish Bhaumik Asstt. Commissioner Of Income A-3/2, Labony Estate Vs Tax, Circle – 50(1), Kolkata Salt Lake, Bidhannagar North Kolkata - 700064 [Pan : Adypb8516H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 31/10/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue Raised In This Appeal Is About The Correctness Of The Amount Of Capital Gain Arising From Sale Of Flat Owned By The Assessee. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2014-15 On 30/09/2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,40,570/- & The Same Included Income From Capital Gain At Rs.4,12,278/-. Thereafter, The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 26/10/2016 & The Assessment Records Were The Subject Matter Before The Ld. Pr. Cit In The Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act & After Culmination Of The Revisionary Proceedings, Directions Were Given To The Ld. Assessing Officer By The Ld. Pr. Cit To Pass A Fresh

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

Jaganathan Balasingh, Erode vs. ACIT, Erode

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 1308/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1307/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Annappandinadar Jaganathan Acit बनाम/ Prop: Jagan Metal Mart Circle-2 Canara Bank Building, Erode. Vs. Modachur Road, Gobichettipalayam-638 452. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aewpj-8097-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1308/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Jaganathan Balasingh Acit बनाम/ No.8, Mahalakshmi Metal Mart, Circle-2 Veleppa Gounder Street Erode. Vs. Chinna Modachur, Gobichettipalayam-638 476. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ahhpb-6693-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

Annapppandinadar Jaganathan, Gobichettipalayam vs. ACIT, Erode

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 1307/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1307/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Annappandinadar Jaganathan Acit बनाम/ Prop: Jagan Metal Mart Circle-2 Canara Bank Building, Erode. Vs. Modachur Road, Gobichettipalayam-638 452. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aewpj-8097-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1308/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Jaganathan Balasingh Acit बनाम/ No.8, Mahalakshmi Metal Mart, Circle-2 Veleppa Gounder Street Erode. Vs. Chinna Modachur, Gobichettipalayam-638 476. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ahhpb-6693-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

Pradeep Kumar Pansari, Manglabag vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 65/CTK/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.65/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013) Pradeep Kumar Pansari, Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack C/O Rajhans, Manglabag, Odisha Pan No. :Abbpp 3377 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Office Of The Cit(A), Delhi, Dated 07.01.2024, In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1059445764 (1) For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. In This Appeal, Though The Assessee Has Taken Five Grounds Of Appeal, However, The Only Issue Is Pertaining To The Addition Of Rs.9,19,045/- Made By Treating The Commission Claimed By The Assessee As Bogus. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual, Engaged In The Retail Business Of Readymade Garments, Textile Items, Leather Goods & Other Accessories Under The Name & Style M/S Rajhans. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.09.2012 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.21,22,416/- & The Assessment Was Completed U/S.143(3)

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

Ghanashyam Hemalata Vidyamandir Society, Baliapanda vs. CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 207/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Ghanashyam Hemalata M/S. Ghanashyam Hemalata Vs. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Income Income Vidyamandir Vidyamandir Society, Society, Tax Tax (Exemption), (Exemption), Baliapanda, Puri Baliapanda, Puri Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaatg 0604 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dillip Kumar Mohanty, Dillip Kumar Mohanty, Adv Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/0 05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/0 /05/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Or This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Or This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed U/S.263 Of The Act By The Ld Cit( U/S.263 Of The Act By The Ld Cit(Exemption), Hyderabad Dated 27.3.2023 Exemption), Hyderabad Dated 27.3.2023 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Shri Dillip Kumar Mohanty, Dillip Kumar Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sanjay Kumar, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Dillip Kumar MohantyFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263