CIT v. Harjinder Kaur

222 CTR 254High Court2009#5364 most cited

What is CIT v. Harjinder Kaur authority for?

An assessment made on an invalid return, such as one not signed or verified as required by Section 140, cannot be cured by Section 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the defect is fundamental and affects jurisdiction.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Harjinder Kaur · Section 140 · Section 292B · invalid return · unsigned return · unverified return · inherent defect · jurisdiction · assessment on invalid return

Also reported as

180 Taxmann 23

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 143(3A)Section 143(3B)Section 144BSection 69C
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

cost plus methodsection 140section 292bdirections of the drpsection 292interest u/s 234apermanent establishmentsection 29transfer pricing adjustmentpenalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 144c(13)dispute resolution panel

Judgments citing CIT v. Harjinder Kaur

Commissioner of Income Tax –II vs. M/S Micron Steels Pvt. Ltd

ITA/19/2014HC Delhi11 Feb 2015
Section 170Section 391

…or other proceeding taken by an authority suffers from an inherent lacuna affecting his/its jurisdiction, the same cannot be cured by having resort to Section 292B. 14. The issue again cropped up before the Court in CIT Vs. Harjinder Kaur (2009) 222 CTR 254 (P&H). That was a case where return in question filed by the assessee was neither 2015:DHC:1375-DB ITA Nos. 19-24/2014 Page 8 signed by the assessee nor verified in terms of the mandate of Section 140 of the Act. The Court was of the opinion that such a return cannot be treated as return. Even a return filed by the assessee and this…

Spice Enfotainment Ltd

ITA - 475 / 2011HC Delhi03 Aug 2011
Section 143Section 292B

…mmons or other proceeding taken by an authority suffers from an inherent lacuna affecting his/its jurisdiction, the same cannot be cured by having resort to Section 292B. 14. The issue again cropped up before the Court in CIT Vs. Harjinder Kaur (2009) 222 CTR 254 (P&H). That was a case where return in question filed by the assessee was neither signed by the assessee nor verified in terms of the mandate of Section 140 of the Act. The Court was of the opinion that such a return cannot be treated as return even a return filed by the assessee and this inherent defect could not be cured inspite of the de…