This compilation indexes twelve High Court rulings decided between April 2025 and June 2026 in which the central procedural or substantive question arose under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The cases span the Gujarat, Madras, Bombay, Delhi, Karnataka, and Calcutta High Courts and involve a range of co-issues including penalty under Section 270A, return invalidity under Section 139(9), residency determination under Section 6(1), DTAA questions under Section 90, and TDS-related matters under Section 195 and Section 197. The compilation is intended for use by in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who need a fast cross-court reference index for Section 264 litigation.

Research index only. This page catalogues publicly available court orders for research and reference purposes. Nothing on this page constitutes legal or tax advice. Readers should verify all rulings against the full authenticated judgment text and check for subsequent stays, reversals, or appellate orders before placing reliance.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vests the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Income Tax with revisional jurisdiction to call for and examine the record of any proceeding under the Act, and to pass such order thereon as he thinks fit — provided the order sought to be revised is not itself an order that is or could have been the subject of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal. The power is exercisable either suo motu or on the application of the assessee, and the proviso to Section 264(3) prescribes a one-year limitation period within which the assessee's application must be made. The revisional authority is required to afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing any order prejudicial to the assessee's interests.

The 12 rulings

1. Bhikhabhai Maneklal Patel vs Office Of Principal Commissioner Of

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 8 June 2026
Sections engaged: 264
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition was filed as Special Civil Application No. 12819 of 2024 before the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad, challenging action of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-3. Per the source preview, the petitioner's counsel at the hearing submitted that the matter may be remanded to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-3 for deciding the application on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The matter was taken up for final hearing with the consent of all parties, and Rule was issued with the respondent's Senior Standing Counsel waiving service.

2. Mahalingam Nadarajan vs Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 16 April 2026
Sections engaged: 6(1), 264
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 14470 of 2026) was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 31.03.2024 (DIN and Order No. ITBA/REV/F/REV7/2023-24/1063787958(1)) passed by the first respondent, whereby the petitioner's application filed under Section 264 for revising an assessment order dated 12.03.2024 was rejected. The petitioner additionally sought a direction that the petitioner be determined as a Non-Resident under Section 6(1) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2014-15.

3. Gm Modular Private Limited 2019 20 vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 30 March 2026
Sections engaged: 270A, 264
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: By Writ Petition No. 378 of 2026, the petitioner challenged the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 264, which summarily rejected the revision application filed by the petitioner. Concurrently, the petitioner also challenged the penalty order dated 29.01.2024 passed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 270A for Assessment Year 2019-20. Per the source preview, Rule was made returnable forthwith with the consent of parties and heard finally.

4. Raj Rayon Industries Limited vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 3 February 2026
Sections engaged: 139(9), 264
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Writ Petition No. 1904 of 2025 challenged both the order dated 30th December 2023 declaring the petitioner's return invalid under Section 139(9), and the order dated 28th March 2025 passed by the Principal Commissioner under Section 264. Per the source preview, the petitioner had filed its Return of Income for A.Y. 2022-2023 on 2nd November 2022, declaring a total loss of Rs. 45.47 Crores, after which a notice dated 14th December 2022 was issued under Section 139(9) stating that the return was defective.

5. Baskaran Ganesan vs The Commissioner Income Tax

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 5 January 2026
Sections engaged: 264
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (lead WP No. 25481 of 2023, along with connected writ petitions) was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the impugned order dated 07.07.2023 passed under Section 264 for Assessment Year 2019-20 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1054195164(1)), and to direct the first respondent to complete the revision proceedings afresh for Assessment Year 2019-20 on merits after granting reasonable and sufficient opportunity of hearing. Multiple writ petitions by the same petitioner concerning different assessment years were clubbed and heard together.

6. M/S Lg Electronics India P.Ltd vs Director Of Income Tax & Ors

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 24 December 2025
Sections engaged: 9(1)(vi), 264
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Filed as W.P.(C) 15181/2004, the writ petition challenged an order dated 27.04.2004 passed by the respondents under Section 264, wherein the respondents decided the characterisation of a payment made by the petitioner to Global Cricket Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (GCC) in respect of booking of space and the right of use of the trademark of the International Cricket Council (ICC). Per the source preview, the respondents apportioned 2/3rd of the total payment made to GCC towards advertisement by way of booking space, and the remainder towards royalty or fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vi); judgment was reserved on 22.11.2025 and delivered on 24.12.2025.

7. M/S Gopalan Enterprises vs The Principal Commissioner

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 27 November 2025
Sections engaged: 264
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Writ Petition No. 14394 of 2022 was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order of the first respondent dated 15.03.2021 passed under Section 264 for Assessment Year 2014-15. The petitioner additionally sought a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's claim for Assessment Year 2014-15 and pass a fresh order. The matter was heard and an oral order was made on 27th November 2025.

8. Qualys Inc vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 18 November 2025
Sections engaged: 264, 90
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Writ Petition No. 9841 of 2022 was filed by Qualys Inc (PAN: AAACQ2222M), a company incorporated in the United States of America and described in the source as a tax resident of USA, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calling for the records of the petitioner's case before the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Bengaluru. The petition engaged both Section 264 and Section 90, indicating the revision proceedings arose in the context of an international taxation matter where treaty provisions under Section 90 were relevant.

9. Shushilaben Jayantibhai Patel vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 11 November 2025
Sections engaged: 264, 144
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Special Civil Application No. 11528 of 2023 was filed by an 82-year-old senior citizen challenging an order passed by the respondent authority under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as well as an order passed by Respondent No. 2 under a related provision (as per source preview). The petition was approved for reporting by the Gujarat High Court, and the matter was taken up for final hearing as a short issue with Rule made returnable forthwith; the Senior Standing Counsel waived service on behalf of Respondent No. 1.

10. M/S.Srilankan Airlines Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 23 September 2025
Sections engaged: 264, 195
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: W.P. No. 17155 of 2022 was filed by M/s. Srilankan Airlines Ltd (PAN: AAECS3720Q) seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned order C.No.CIT/IT/CHE/112(264)/2020-21 dated 17.03.2022 passed under Section 264 for Assessment Year 2021-22, and to direct the second respondent to complete the revision proceedings afresh for Assessment Year 2021-22 after granting reasonable and sufficient opportunity of hearing. The petition engaged Section 195 alongside Section 264, reflecting the international taxation context of the petitioner's operations.

11. Sanjay Somany vs Union Of India & Ors

Bench: Calcutta High Court
Date: 6 May 2025
Sections engaged: 197, 264
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Three writ petitions (WPO/536/2023, WPO/537/2023, and WPO/538/2023) were filed by the same petitioner and heard together over multiple dates between April and May 2025. Per the source preview, the factual background involved a dispute arising from the Central Government's communications setting the total remuneration of the petitioner and conditions requiring furnishing of no-objection certificates from lenders; the revision proceedings under Section 264 engaged alongside Section 197 appear in this context. The judgment was delivered on 6th May 2025.

12. Mukul Somany vs Union Of India & Ors

Bench: Calcutta High Court
Date: 21 April 2025
Sections engaged: 197(17), 264
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Three writ petitions (WPO/198/2023, WPO/200/2023, and WPO/201/2023) by the same petitioner were heard together over multiple dates in April 2025. Per the source preview, the factual background similarly involved the Central Government's communications regarding the petitioner's total remuneration and requirements for no-objection certificates from lenders — a pattern closely analogous to the co-petitioner Sanjay Somany cases heard by the same bench. Section 197(17) and Section 264 were both engaged, and the judgment was delivered on 21st April 2025.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Remand for fresh hearing is the most recurrent relief sought. Across cases 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10, the petitioner's primary prayer was not a substantive ruling in their favour but rather a direction to the revisional authority to reconsider the application on merits after affording a proper opportunity of hearing — indicating that denial of adequate hearing at the Section 264 stage is a persistently litigated ground.
Section 264 revisions arise in conjunction with a wide range of co-sections. The twelve cases collectively engage Section 270A (penalty), Section 139(9) (defective return), Section 6(1) (residential status), Section 9(1)(vi) (royalty/FTS characterisation), Section 90 (DTAA), Section 195 (TDS on payments to non-residents), and Section 197/197(17) (remuneration approval) alongside Section 264 — demonstrating that revision applications are filed not only to correct assessment errors but also to re-agitate penalty, TDS, and treaty classification issues.
International taxation matters feature prominently. Cases 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, and portions of 11 and 12 involve international taxation wards or cross-border payment characterisation, suggesting that non-residents and foreign entities are active users of the Section 264 revision route, possibly because the appeal route under Section 246A may not always be available or adequate for the specific grievance.
Multiple High Courts are actively entertaining Article 226 writs against Section 264 orders. The twelve rulings span Gujarat, Madras, Bombay, Delhi, Karnataka, and Calcutta High Courts, indicating that challenges to Section 264 revision orders — whether for outright rejection or for alleged procedural defects — are geographically dispersed and not concentrated in any single jurisdiction.
Substantive disposal at the preview stage is limited. All twelve cases carry an outcome direction of "Outcome not specified in source," which is consistent with the text previews reflecting either oral orders directing remand or initial Rule-returnable stages — suggesting that a significant share of Section 264 writ petitions are resolved at an interlocutory or consent-remand stage rather than through a full merits judgment.

How to use this compilation

This index is a first-pass research tool. Each entry contains the identity fields — bench, date, sections, and outcome direction — drawn verbatim from the source data, and the procedural or substantive note is drawn solely from the available text preview of that case. Because the previews are necessarily truncated, researchers should retrieve the full authenticated judgment from indiankanoon.org, the relevant High Court's official portal (e.g., mhc.tn.gov.in/judis for Madras, gujarathighcourt.nic.in for Gujarat, or the respective e-courts portal), or a licensed legal database before placing reliance on any ruling.

When using a case from this compilation in a submission, brief, or internal memo, verify: (a) whether the order was an interim direction or a final disposal; (b) whether the matter was subsequently taken up on appeal or revision before a higher forum; (c) whether any stay was granted or vacated; and (d) whether the CBDT has issued any circular or instruction that may affect the statutory interpretation point at issue. The outcome direction field reflects the source data at the time of ingestion and may not capture post-order developments.

Finally, Section 264 revision applications are time-bound and subject to procedural conditions under the Act. Any researcher identifying a potentially relevant ruling here should cross-check the specific limitation period, the availability of the revision route vis-à-vis the appeal route for the facts at hand, and any jurisdictional conditions. This compilation does not substitute for advice from a qualified legal or tax professional.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 264 Revision Orders: 12 High Court Rulings (2025–2026)