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

Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Patna vs. CIT Exemption, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 270/PAT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.270/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited..……….………………. …………………....Appellant Shiksha Bhawan Bihar Rastrabhasha Parisad Campus, Acharya Shivpujan Sahay Path, Sampatchak Phulwari, Patna -800004. [Pan: Aaecb1859M] Vs. Cit(Exemption), Patna…….…....……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. V. Pathy, Sr. Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. A H Chowdhury, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 27, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(Exemption) For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Fairly Submitted That Against An Order Passed By The Cit (Exemption) Under Section 264 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, No Appeal Lies Before The Tribunal. Accordingly, He Prayed For Withdrawal Of The Present Appeal. 3. On The Other Hand, The Ld. Dr Did Not Raise Any Objection To The Prayer Made By The Assessee.

Section 264

Kavita Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 30(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1377/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Kavita Agarwal…………………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 81, Arihand Garden, Southern Avenue Flat No.3A, 3Rd Floor, Kol – 700029.. [Pan: Adbpa8919N] Vs. Ito, Ward-30(2), Kolkata……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Saswati Mitra Dutta & Rajeshree Dutta, Advocates, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Dipu Koley, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 14, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.01.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 818 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 147Section 250Section 264Section 271(1)(c)