Section 264 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.378

Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 378 (Revision of other orders) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 378 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 264 is Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (171 ITR 634), cited in 102 of the 338 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 264

Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT
171 ITR 634 · 1988 · High Court
102
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer's power to direct a special audit under Section 142(2A) requires an objective assessment of account complexity, not subjective satisfaction. Accounts are 'complex' only if they are genuinely difficult to understand, and the AO must first make a genuine attempt to comprehend them before ordering a special audit.

CIT v. Tin Box Company
260 ITR 637 · 2003 · High Court
80
citing judgments

When an assessee possesses sufficient interest-free funds, it is presumed that any interest-free advances or investments made are from these funds, preventing disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii). This principle applies if own capital and interest-free loans exceed the interest-free advances given.

Kirtilal Kalidas & Co. v. DCIT
67 ITD 573 · 1998 · ITAT
48
citing judgments

An assessment order is invalid if it relies on adverse material collected by the Assessing Officer without providing the assessee an opportunity to confront and rebut it, as this constitutes a serious violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically *audi alteram partem*.

Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v. DCIT
236 ITR 671 · 1999 · High Court
45
citing judgments

A higher authority's approval for an income tax proposal must reflect an application of mind to the facts and cannot be deemed from a mere nomination. An assessment made without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee violates principles of natural justice and is therefore invalid.

Kamal Kumar Kalia v. Union of India
268 Taxmann 398 · 2020 · High Court
26
citing judgments

Employees of Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) and nationalized banks are not considered government employees for the purpose of exemption under Section 10(10AA) of the Income Tax Act.

Techbooks International (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3, Noida
63 Taxmann.com 114 · 2015 · High Court
22
citing judgments

The determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for international transactions involving debt requires consideration of both the amount on which interest should be charged and the arm's length rate for that interest. Guidelines are provided for computing the ALP of the international transaction of 'debt arising during the course of business.'

CIT v. Ignifluid Boilers (I) Ltd.
283 ITR 295 · 2006 · High Court
19
citing judgments

Retention money is considered deferred payment and is not taxable in the year it is retained if it is contingent upon the satisfactory completion of the contract work and the assessee has no vested right to receive it.

PCIT v. Anuj Bansal
2023 SCC OnLine DEL 4159 · 2023 · Reported
13
citing judgments

The Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT v. Anuj Bansal affirms a tribunal's view, suggesting its authority lies in establishing or confirming principles related to assessment proceedings, potentially concerning reassessment or search and seizure.

ACIT v. Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd.
120 TTJ 865 · 2009 · ITAT
12
citing judgments

Deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e) can only be taxed in the hands of shareholders who are both registered and beneficial owners of shares in the paying company.

KPTCL Davangere v. ITO
170 ITD 587 · ITAT
12
citing judgments

Employees of a statutory corporation are not considered employees of the State or Central Government, making them ineligible for exemption under Section 10(10AA)(i) and rendering the employer liable for tax deduction at source.

Judgments on Section 264

Sundaram Home Finance Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-6(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1996/CHNY/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sundaram Home Finance Ltd, Income Tax Officer, 5Th Floor, Sundaram Towers, Corporate Ward-6(1), No.46, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai. Vs. Chennai – 600014 अपीलाथ" Appellant ""थ" Respondent Aadcs4826J Permanent Account Number Of Assessee: अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant Represented By: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan- Advocate ""थ" "ारा/Respondent Represented By: Mr.Madhan Kumar – Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing: 30.07.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2026 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Dated 03.02.2026 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Therefore Liable To Be Set Aside.

Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

Amar Kishore Singh, Araria vs. Income Tax Officer, Purnea

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed with liberty

ITA 415/PAT/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Sept 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Amar Kishore Singh Vs. Ito Ward-3(1), Purnea, Ward No.16, Near Gayatri Bihar Mandir, Araria, Bihar-854311 [Pan: Bwcps6168J] Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Bhagwan Jha, Itp Respondent By : Shri Bharat Bhusan Garg, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2026 O R D E R Per Yogesh Kumar U.S.: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Patna (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short) Dated 22.04.2026, Passed U/S 154/264 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”, For Short) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, An Assessment Order Came To Be Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 21.03.2022 Making An Addition Of Rs.47,11,000/- U/S 69 Of The Act & Rs.2,55,434/- As Income From Other Sources (Interest). Instead Of Challenging The Assessment Order Before The Ld. Cit(A), Assessee Preferred An Application U/S 264 Of The Act Before The Ld. Pcit, Which Came To Be Dismissed Due To Delay In Latches On 26.09.2025 By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax. Further, Assessee Has Also Filed An Amar Kishore Singh; A.Y.: 2017-18 Application U/S 154 Of The Act Before The Ld. Pcit To ‘Rectify The Error In The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Dated 26.09.2026. The Ld. Pcit Vide Order Dated 22.04.2026, Dismissed The Said Application Of The Assessee. As Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Dated 22.04.2026 Passed U/S 154/264 Of The Act, Assessee Preferred The Present Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Bhagwan Jha, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhusan Garg, CIT, DR
Section 147Section 154Section 250Section 253Section 264Section 69

Muthukumar Prabhakaran, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Tirupur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2403/CHNY/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2403/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Muthukumar Prabhakaran The Income Tax Officer 24A, Lucky Nagar Vs. Ward 1(4) Pitchampalayampudur Tirupur. Tirupur – 641 602. [Pan: Bcfpp4705F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.S.Hithesh, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. H.S.Manjunath, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.07.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 02.03.2026 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”], U/S.147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B

For Appellant: Shri. R.S.Hithesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. H.S.Manjunath, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 264