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

The Kanyakumari District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd No 2946, Nagercoil vs. Assessing Officer, Tirunelveli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2436/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2436/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Kanyakumari District Co- The Assessing Officer Operative Milk Producers Union Vs. Tirunelveli Limited No.2946 Kp Road, Palpannai Nagercoil – 629003 [Pan: Aaaat1033D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V.Padmanaban, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Manjunath H.S., Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.02.2026 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Ld.Cit(A)"], Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 17.05.2023 Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") By The Assistant

For Appellant: Shri. V.Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Manjunath H.S., Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Arihant Roller Flour Mills, Jind, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jind, Haryana

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 942/CHANDI/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.942/Chandi/2026 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Arihant Roller Flour Mills Ito Ward – 1 बनाम/ Vs. Uchana S.O, Baroda, Jind Kothi No. 1234, Urban Estate Haryana – 126115 Jind, Haryana – 127306 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aamfa-5652-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Nikhil Goyal & Sh. Ashok Goyal (Advocates) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Jaishree Sharma (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-06-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 07-07-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak (Pr. Cit) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Vide Impugned Order Dated 28-03-2026 Proposing Revision Of An Assessment As Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S.144 R.W.S. 260 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 16-02-2024 After Making Quantum Addition Of Rs.10.06 Lacs.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal and Sh. Ashok GoyalFor Respondent: Smt. Jaishree Sharma (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 263Section 270A

Raman Kant, Ludhiana vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 989/CHANDI/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jul 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.989/Chandi/2026 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Shri Raman Kant Pr. Cit – 1 Prop. Laxmi Timber Traders Ludhiana बनाम/ Vs. Radha Swami Road Near Dhuri Railway Line Ludhiana, Punjab – 141002 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bgupk-2406-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Pushkal Soni (Ca) &Sh. Gulshan Wadhwa – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30-06-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 06-07-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ludhiana-1 (Pr. Cit) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23 Vide Impugned Order Dated 25-02-2026 Proposing Revision Of An Assessment As Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S.143(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Sh. Pushkal Soni (CA) &Sh. GulshanFor Respondent: Sh. Rajat Kumar Kureel (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

The Patiala Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, Patiala vs. Income Tax Officer, Patiala

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1836/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jul 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1834/Chandi/2025 & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1835/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1836/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Patiala Cooperative Marketing Ito Society Limited Aaykar Bhawan बनाम/ Vs. 98, Phase – I, New Grain Market New Leela Bhawan Sirhind Road, Patiala – 147001 Patiala - 147001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadat-6180-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Deepinder Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-06-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 06-07-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016- 17 & 2017-18 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Ita No.1834/Chandi/2025 Which Arises Out

For Appellant: Sh. Deepinder Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P

The Patiala Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, Patiala vs. Income Tax Officer, Patiala

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1835/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jul 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1834/Chandi/2025 & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1835/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1836/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Patiala Cooperative Marketing Ito Society Limited Aaykar Bhawan बनाम/ Vs. 98, Phase – I, New Grain Market New Leela Bhawan Sirhind Road, Patiala – 147001 Patiala - 147001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadat-6180-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Deepinder Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-06-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 06-07-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016- 17 & 2017-18 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Ita No.1834/Chandi/2025 Which Arises Out

For Appellant: Sh. Deepinder Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P

The Patiala Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, Patiala vs. Income Tax Officer, Patiala

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1834/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jul 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1834/Chandi/2025 & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1835/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1836/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Patiala Cooperative Marketing Ito Society Limited Aaykar Bhawan बनाम/ Vs. 98, Phase – I, New Grain Market New Leela Bhawan Sirhind Road, Patiala – 147001 Patiala - 147001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadat-6180-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Deepinder Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-06-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 06-07-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016- 17 & 2017-18 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Ita No.1834/Chandi/2025 Which Arises Out

For Appellant: Sh. Deepinder Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P

Vandna Johar, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3 Ludhiana, Ludhiana

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1094/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jul 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1094/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ms. Vandna Johar Dcit Central Circle-3 बनाम/ Vs. 16R, Model Town Aaykar Bhawan Ludhiana – 141002 Ludhiana - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aazpj-9774-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Dev Mehru (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-07-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 06-07-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana [Cit(A)] Dated 12.07.2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) R.W.S 263Of The Act On 29.04.2021. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 4 Days In The Appeal Which Stands Condoned. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Made Various Additions To Determine Assessee’S Income At Rs.396.05

For Appellant: Sh. Dev Mehru (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)