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

Basudev Banik, Bengal Enamel vs. PCIT-5, Kol, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1034/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1029 To 1035/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18 Basudev Banik Pcit -5, Kolkata 2, Ghosh Para Road, Palta Vs P.O.: Bengal Enamel 24 Pargana (N) Pin:- 743122 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : The Above Captioned Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-5, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”), Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 493 Days In Filing The Present Appeals By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. The Same Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “I Basudev Banik, Son Of Kartick Chandra Banik Of 2. Ghosh Para Road, Palta, Po: Bengal Enamel. Dist. 24. Parganas (N). Pin: 743122, By Occupation Business, Having Pan No.Ahipb4753G , Do Hereby Solemnly Declare & Affirm As Follows: 1. That I Am Carrying On Trading Business Of Two Wheeler Motor Vehicle Under The Name & Style M/S. Banik Motors.

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 132ASection 144Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 263

Basudev Banik, Bengal Enamel vs. PCIT-5, Kol, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1033/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1029 To 1035/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18 Basudev Banik Pcit -5, Kolkata 2, Ghosh Para Road, Palta Vs P.O.: Bengal Enamel 24 Pargana (N) Pin:- 743122 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : The Above Captioned Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-5, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”), Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 493 Days In Filing The Present Appeals By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. The Same Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “I Basudev Banik, Son Of Kartick Chandra Banik Of 2. Ghosh Para Road, Palta, Po: Bengal Enamel. Dist. 24. Parganas (N). Pin: 743122, By Occupation Business, Having Pan No.Ahipb4753G , Do Hereby Solemnly Declare & Affirm As Follows: 1. That I Am Carrying On Trading Business Of Two Wheeler Motor Vehicle Under The Name & Style M/S. Banik Motors.

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 132ASection 144Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 263

Basudev Banik, Bengal Enamel vs. PCIT-5, Kolkata.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1032/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1029 To 1035/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18 Basudev Banik Pcit -5, Kolkata 2, Ghosh Para Road, Palta Vs P.O.: Bengal Enamel 24 Pargana (N) Pin:- 743122 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : The Above Captioned Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-5, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”), Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 493 Days In Filing The Present Appeals By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. The Same Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “I Basudev Banik, Son Of Kartick Chandra Banik Of 2. Ghosh Para Road, Palta, Po: Bengal Enamel. Dist. 24. Parganas (N). Pin: 743122, By Occupation Business, Having Pan No.Ahipb4753G , Do Hereby Solemnly Declare & Affirm As Follows: 1. That I Am Carrying On Trading Business Of Two Wheeler Motor Vehicle Under The Name & Style M/S. Banik Motors.

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 132ASection 144Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 263

Basudev Banik, Bengal Enamel vs. PCIT-5, Kolkata.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1031/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1029 To 1035/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18 Basudev Banik Pcit -5, Kolkata 2, Ghosh Para Road, Palta Vs P.O.: Bengal Enamel 24 Pargana (N) Pin:- 743122 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : The Above Captioned Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-5, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”), Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 493 Days In Filing The Present Appeals By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. The Same Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “I Basudev Banik, Son Of Kartick Chandra Banik Of 2. Ghosh Para Road, Palta, Po: Bengal Enamel. Dist. 24. Parganas (N). Pin: 743122, By Occupation Business, Having Pan No.Ahipb4753G , Do Hereby Solemnly Declare & Affirm As Follows: 1. That I Am Carrying On Trading Business Of Two Wheeler Motor Vehicle Under The Name & Style M/S. Banik Motors.

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 132ASection 144Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 263

Basudev Banik, Bengal Enamel vs. PCIT-5, Kol, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1030/KOL/2023[743122]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2023

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1029 To 1035/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18 Basudev Banik Pcit -5, Kolkata 2, Ghosh Para Road, Palta Vs P.O.: Bengal Enamel 24 Pargana (N) Pin:- 743122 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : The Above Captioned Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-5, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”), Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 493 Days In Filing The Present Appeals By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. The Same Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “I Basudev Banik, Son Of Kartick Chandra Banik Of 2. Ghosh Para Road, Palta, Po: Bengal Enamel. Dist. 24. Parganas (N). Pin: 743122, By Occupation Business, Having Pan No.Ahipb4753G , Do Hereby Solemnly Declare & Affirm As Follows: 1. That I Am Carrying On Trading Business Of Two Wheeler Motor Vehicle Under The Name & Style M/S. Banik Motors.

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 132ASection 144Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 263

Basudev Banik, Bengal Enamel vs. PCIT-5, Kol, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1029/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1029 To 1035/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18 Basudev Banik Pcit -5, Kolkata 2, Ghosh Para Road, Palta Vs P.O.: Bengal Enamel 24 Pargana (N) Pin:- 743122 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : The Above Captioned Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-5, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”), Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 493 Days In Filing The Present Appeals By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. The Same Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “I Basudev Banik, Son Of Kartick Chandra Banik Of 2. Ghosh Para Road, Palta, Po: Bengal Enamel. Dist. 24. Parganas (N). Pin: 743122, By Occupation Business, Having Pan No.Ahipb4753G , Do Hereby Solemnly Declare & Affirm As Follows: 1. That I Am Carrying On Trading Business Of Two Wheeler Motor Vehicle Under The Name & Style M/S. Banik Motors.

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 132ASection 144Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 263

Ashok Kumar Gupta, Faridabad vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the grounds raised are sustained and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 369/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Ashok Kumar Gupta, Vs Pr. Cit, 200, Sec.-7A, Faridabad. Faridabad, Haryana. 121 001 Pan: Aalpg5795M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2023 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Is Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.03.2020 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. Pcit) Arising Out Of The Order Dated 28.11.2017 Passed U/S. 147/148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward 1(1), Faridabad (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. At The Outset, It Was Pointed Out By Ld. Ar That An Application For Condonation Of Delay Of 324 Days Has Been Filed Supported With An Affidavit. On Hearing Upon The Same, It Comes Up That The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Upto 11.05.2020 & Due To Covid-19 Restrictions, In View Of The Directions Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.03/2020, The Period Between 15.03.2020 & 28.02.2022 Has To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Calculation Of Limitation & In The Light Of The Aforesaid, The Delay Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)