How many judgments cite 263—CIT v. Subhash Kumar Jain?

28 judgments on BharatTax cite 263—CIT v. Subhash Kumar Jain (335 ITR 364), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 263—CIT v. Subhash Kumar Jain come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139, Section 144, Section 147, Section 148, Section 263, Section 271(1)(a).

263—CIT v. Subhash Kumar Jain

335 ITR 364High Court2011#4196 most cited

What is 263—CIT v. Subhash Kumar Jain authority for?

The Commissioner (CIT) cannot direct the Assessing Officer (AO) to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) using revisional powers under Section 263 if the AO did not initiate them in the original assessment order. The CIT's revisional power under Section 263 cannot be used to create a non-existent proceeding.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. Subhash Kumar Jain · Section 263 · Section 271(1)(c) · revisional power · penalty proceedings · erroneous assessment · prejudicial to revenue · AO not initiating penalty

Sections most often in play

Section 139 Section 144 Section 147 Section 148 Section 263 Section 271(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271AAC

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)(a)section 271aac section 271a erroneous and prejudicial section 115bb section 263 section 115b section 26 levy of penalty section 271(1)(c)section 271(1)section 115bbe

Judgments citing 263—CIT v. Subhash Kumar Jain

Dubbi Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd, Dausa vs. ITO WD, Dausa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1283/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.C.)

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 263Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80P

…e CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power under s. 263-CIT vs. Subhash Kumar Jain (2011) 335 ITR 364 (P&H) followed; CIT vs. Surendra Prasad Agrawal (2005) 194 CTR (All) 161: (2005) 275 ITR 113 (All) dissented from." 9.6 Easy Transcription & Software (P) Ltd. (2017) 185 TTJ 504 (Ahd) "Revision- Jurisdiction of CIT-Jurisdiction to direct AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) It is not open to CIT to exercise the revisional powers…

Shri Vijay Kumar Patel, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

ITA 212/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 212/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 68

…he Assessing Officer had failed to initiate penalty proceedings while completing assessment under Section 153A of the Act. 6. It may be noticed that the said issue is no longer res integra. This Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Subhash Kumar Jain (2011) 335 ITR 364 agreeing with the view of High Courts of Delhi in Additional CIT v. J.K.D.'Costa (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sudershan Talkies (1993) 201 ITR 289 (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nihal Chand Rekyan (2000) 242 ITR 45 (Del), Rajasthan in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Keshrimal Parasmal (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Calc…

Hasmukh Hirji Gada, Pune vs. PCIT (Central), Pune

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

ITA 1023/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1023/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hasmukh Hirji Gada, Vs. Pcit (Central), Pune. 1073, Bhosale Mystiqa, Plot No.425, Flat No.203, Gokhale Road, Om Super Market, Shivaji Nagar, Pune- 411002. Pan : Adxps3533L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Neelesh Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Pcit (Central), Pune For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions Of Law It Be Held That The Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Under Section 263 For Initiating The Penalty Under Section 271Aac Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Hence Is Improper, Unwarranted, Unjustified & Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts Prevailing In The Case. The Order Passed U/S. 263 Be Set Aside. The Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 263Section 271ASection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1023/PUN/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hasmukh Hirji Gada, Vs. PCIT (Central), Pune. 1073, Bhosale Mystiqa, Plot No.425, Flat No.203, Gokhale Road, Om Super Market, Shivaji Nagar, Pune- 411002. PAN : ADXPS3533L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Neelesh Khandelwal Revenue by : Shri Keyur Patel Date of hearing : 02.09.2024 Date of pronouncement : 07.11.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directe…

Prakash Davara, Raipur vs. Assistant Coimmissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 177/RPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 177/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Prakash Davara, 08, Gitanjali Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Acupd0169K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CAFor Respondent: S/shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR &

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 156Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…id contention had relied on the following judicial pronouncements: (i) CIT Vs. Rakesh Nain Trivedi, ITA No.290 of 2014 dated 29.10.2015 (P & H ) (ii) Easy Transcription & Software (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, 185 TTJ (Ahd) 504 (iii) CIT Vs. Subhash Kumar Jain (2011) 335 ITR 364 ( P & H) (iv) Addl. CIT Vs. J.K D.’ Costa (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) (v) CIT Vs. Sudershan Talkies (1993) 201 ITR 289 (Del) (vi) CIT Vs. Nihal Chand Rekyan (2000) 242 ITR 45 (Del) (vii) CIT Vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj) (viii) CIT Vs. Linotype & Machinery (1991) 192 ITR 337 ( Cal.) (ix) Surendra Prasad Singh and Ors Vs. CIT (1…

Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 231/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Sri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 230/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Sri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Dhankot Filling Station, Gurgaon vs. Pr.CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshdhankot Filling Station, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sultanpur Road, Village Faridabad Dhankot, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122505 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaefd7291A Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 275Section 69A

…d Agrawal (2005) 275 ITR 113 (All). On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance upon the judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax v. J.K. D's Costa (1984) 147 ITR (St.) 1 (SC), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Subhash Kumar Jain (2011) 335 ITR 364 Dhankot Filling Station (P&H), Additional Commissioner of Income Tax v. J.K.D' Costs (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Delh), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jagriti Aggarwal (2011) 339 ITR 610 (P&H) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jagtar Singh Chawla (2013) 215 Taxman 154 (P&H). 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. After hearing learned counsel…

Prateek Gupta, Ghaziabad vs. Pr, CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 785/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Prateek Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001 Pan Atbpg8602J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…the case before us the twin conditions to assume jurisdiction suo moto by the Ld. Pr. CIT, namely that the order of the Ld. AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue are not satisfied. 19. In CIT vs. Subhash Kumar Jain (2011) 335 ITR 364 (P&H), the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that where failure to levy penalty was because the assessee surrendered an income, subject to no penalty being levied, there can be no justification for a revisional order for purposes of levy of penalty. 20. For the reasons set out above, the impugned order of the Ld. Pr. CIT under section 263…

Sandeep Gupta, Ghaziabad vs. Pr, CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 784/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Sandeep Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201009 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…e case before us the twin conditions to assume jurisdiction suo moto by the Ld. Pr. CIT, namely that the order of 12 the Ld. AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue are not satisfied. 14. In CIT vs. Subhash Kumar Jain (2011) 335 ITR 364 (P&H), the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that where failure to levy penalty was because the assessee surrendered an income, subject to no penalty being levied, there can be no justification for a revisional order for purposes of levy of penalty. 15. For the reasons set out above, the impugned order of the Ld. Pr. CIT under section 263…