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

Jaya Sivakumar, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 10(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 506/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 505 & 506/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2010-11& 2013-14 Smt. Jaya Sivakumar, The Income Tax Officer, No. 201-207, H 3, Arihant Sloka, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 10(2), Secretariat Colony, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Adppj7765B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. S. Vidhya, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Ann L. Kapthuama, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, Dated 26.09.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 & Ld. Pcit- 3, Chennai Dated 27.03.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Delayed By 79 Days For The Assessment Year 2010-11 & 275 Days For The Assessment Year 2013-14. By Filing A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit For Both The Assessment Years Explaining Detailed Reasons For The Delay, The Ld.

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidhya, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Ann L. Kapthuama, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Jaya Sivakumar, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 10(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 505/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 505 & 506/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2010-11& 2013-14 Smt. Jaya Sivakumar, The Income Tax Officer, No. 201-207, H 3, Arihant Sloka, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 10(2), Secretariat Colony, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Adppj7765B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. S. Vidhya, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Ann L. Kapthuama, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, Dated 26.09.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 & Ld. Pcit- 3, Chennai Dated 27.03.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Delayed By 79 Days For The Assessment Year 2010-11 & 275 Days For The Assessment Year 2013-14. By Filing A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit For Both The Assessment Years Explaining Detailed Reasons For The Delay, The Ld.

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidhya, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Ann L. Kapthuama, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Iris Engineering Industries P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1437/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Iris Engineering Industries Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., (Now Known As M/S. Ravilla Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2, Aerospace Industries P. Ltd.), No. 178, Coimbatore. Aerodrome Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore 641 005. [Pan:Aaaci8996G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. S. Palani Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 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, Coimbatore Dated 31.03.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

M/S R.S. Leder Waren Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 604/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. R. S. Leder Waren Pvt. Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Ltd. (Pan: Aaecr2438N) Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ca Respondent By : Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.06.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Cit(A), Kolkata-2 Appeal No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2020- 21/1031229976(1) Dated 04.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-11(1), Kolkata, Dated 26.09.2018. 2. Appeal Of Assessee Is Time Barred By 238 Days. A Condonation Petition Has Been Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons For The Delay Stating That The Order Of Ld. Pr. Cit, Kolkata-2 Dated 04.03.2021 Was Received On The Same Date. Therefore, Due To Restrictions Imposed On The Movement During The Lockdown Period, Assessee Could Not Contact The Counsel & Has Contacted The Counsel After Returning Normalcy. Hence, He Requested Before The Bench Since The Assessee Is Prevented By Sufficient & Reasonable Cause The Delay Of 238 Days In Filing The Appeal May Be Condoned. We Have Heard Both The Sides & Found That Vide Dated 10.01.2022 By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court, The Period From 15.03.2020 To 28.02.2022 Is To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of 2 M/S. R.S. Leder Waren Pvt. Ltd., A.Y: 2016-17 Computing The Limitation Period During The Covid-19 Pandemic. Considering The Facts & The Explanation Of The Assessee, We Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Admit It For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sudipta Guha, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263