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

Halmira Estate Tea Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

ITA 382/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 382/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Halmira Estate Tea Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of 23, Pankaj Mullick Sarani Vs Income Tax (2), Kolkata Ballygunge Circular Road Kolkata - 700019 [Pan : Aaach6210N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.J. Bhide, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 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 Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 10/06/2020, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That On The Facts Of The Case The Order Passed By Pcit(2) Kolkata On 10.06.2020 U/S Of The Act, Is Bad In Law. 2. That The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer On 10.11.2017 U/S. 143(3) After Due Consideration Of Documents Submitted By The Appellant Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue & Therefore The Order Appealed Against Be Cancelled.”

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Bhide, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

Dhirubhai Mohanbhai Patel, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. PCIT-3, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 246/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Principal Commissioner Of Dhirubhai Mohanbhai Patel, Huf Income-Tax-3, 16, Vikram Plotting, Nr. Bajarang Vs. Ahmedabad Ashram, Thakkarbapa Nagar, Bapunagar-382350 Pan : Aaghd 1362 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" Assessee By : Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23.02.2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit” In Short] Dated 10.03.2022, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” In Short], For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. The Order Passed By The Pcit Is Bad In Law & Required To Be Quashed. 2. Ld. Pcit Erred In Law & On Facts In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Ignoring Fact That Issue Raised In Show Cause Notice U/S 263 Of The Act Has Been Properly Verified By Ao During Scrutiny Assessment Proceedings. 3. Ld. Pcit Erred In Law & On Facts In Proceedings With Revision Jurisdiction Ignoring Fact That Order Passed By Ao Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 263