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

Shri K. Shanmugam, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pudukkottai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 462/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.462/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 K. Shanmugam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 76-77, Sathya Sai Illam, Ward 1, Charles Nagar, Pudukkottai 622 001. Pudukkottai. [Pan:Aamps8456Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Ashok Sundaresan, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 10.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed With A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit Mentioning The Reasons For Delay In Filing The Appeal. By Referring To The Above Affidavit, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That There Is Reasonable Cause

For Appellant: Shri S. Ashok Sundaresan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28

M/S. Dharti Engineers, Amreli vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 198/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 198/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) M/S. Dharti Engineers The Pcit-1 बनाम/ Sardar Nagar Street No.1, Rajkot Vs. Chakkargadh Road,Amreli - 365601 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8555E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit.D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing 22/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 29/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.01.2022 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Rajkot (In Short ‘The Pcit’) Holding The Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 Passed By The Dc/Acit, Cir-3(1), Rkt Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As To ‘The Act’) Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Setting Aside The Issue To The File Of The Ld. Ao With A Direction Upon Him To Pass A Fresh Assessment Only To The Extent Of The Issues In Respect Of The Provision Of Section 40A(3) Of The Act With Proper Enquiry & Verification Of The Claim & Its Genuineness For A.Y. 2017-18. Ita No. 198/Rjt/2022 (M/S. Dharti. Engineers Vs. Pcit) A. Y. 2017-18 - 2- 2. The Short Fact Leading To The Case Is This That The Assessee By Paying Huge Cash In Excess Of Rs.20,000/- Alleged To Have Violated The Provision Of Section 40A(3) Of The Act. The Details Whereof Has Been Reproduced In The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) In The Following Manner:

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

Smt. Trushaba C. Manek L/H. of Late. Shri Chandrasinh P. Manek (Properitor of Dwarkesh Enterprise), Okha, Dist. Jamnagar vs. The Pr. CIT, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Mrs. Madhumita Roy(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Trushaba C. Manek, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of L/H. Of Late Shri Chandrasinh P. Income-Tax, Manek (Prop. Of Dwarkesh Jamnagar Enterprise), Bazar Lane, Raghunath Road, Okha, Gujarat Pan : Aijpm 0949 F अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R 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, Jamnagar [Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 30.03.2021, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. Hon'Ble Pr. Cit Had Issued Notice U/S. 263 In The Name Of Deceased Person, Therefore Notice Issued U/S. 263 Is Not Valid In The Eyes Of Law & Hence Required To Be Quashed. 2. Hon'Ble Pr. Cit, Jamnagar Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Invoking His Revisionary Powers U/S. 263 Without Having Valid Jurisdiction For Addition Of Income U/S. 2(24)(X) R.W.S. 36(1)(Va) Of The Act For Epf For Rs. 8,35,800/- Whereas Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

R. Sriram Gopal, Trichy vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Trichy

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 795/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.795/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dr. R. Sriram Gopal Dcit बनाम 1, Fifth Cross, Thillai Nagar, Circle-3(1), / Vs. Trichy-620 018. Trichy. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Albpg-8722-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri G. Tarun (Advocate)-Ld.Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar (Jcit)-Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28-08-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-08-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 25-05-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 263 Of The Act On 28-12-2018. 2. The Ld. Ar, At The Outset, Pleaded That No Opportunity Of Hearing Was Provided To The Assessee & The Appeal Has Been Dismissed For Non-Prosecution. The Ld. Sr. Dr Pleaded For Dismissal Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar (JCIT)-Ld.DR
Section 143(3)