How many judgments cite Jaswinder Singh v. CIT?

11 judgments on BharatTax cite Jaswinder Singh v. CIT (150 TTJ 33), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Jaswinder Singh v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10(38), Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 263, Section 69A, Section 69C.

Jaswinder Singh v. CIT

150 TTJ 33Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#9412 most cited

What is Jaswinder Singh v. CIT authority for?

Revisional powers under Section 263 cannot be exercised solely based on an audit objection. The Commissioner must independently apply their mind, and a borrowed opinion from an audit party renders the revision untenable.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Jaswinder Singh v. CIT · 150 TTJ 33 · Section 263 · revisionary powers · audit objection · independent application of mind · borrowed opinion · Commissioner's jurisdiction · prejudicial to interest of revenue · inadequate enquiry · assessment order erroneous

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263 Section 69A Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenue inadequate enquiry assessment order erroneous lack of enquiry malabar industrial mere change of opinion child erroneous and prejudicial change of opinion limited scrutiny section 115bb section 263

Judgments citing Jaswinder Singh v. CIT

Pratap Singh Rathi, Ghaziabad vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Kanpur

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 502/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Sh. Pratap Singh Rathi, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of C-143, Surya Nagar, Income Tax , Ghaziabad Knp At Meerut Pin 201 001 Pan No. Ahkpr0582M (Appellant)M (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Shrey Jain &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sh. Pratap Singh Rathi, Vs. Principal Commissioner of C-143, Surya Nagar, Income Tax , Ghaziabad KNP at Meerut PIN 201 001 PAN No. AHKPR0582M (Appellant)m (Respondent) Assessee by: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Shrey Jain & Deepesh Garg,Advs. Department by: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 03.06.2025 Date of pronouncement: 22.07.2025 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The assessee’s appeal is against order dated 26.03.2021 of Learn…

Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Central- 3, New Delhi

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

ITA 3088/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: The Due Date Of Itr Should Have Been Disallowed U/S 43B.”

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271BSection 37Section 43BSection 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3088/Del./2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd., vs. Pr.CIT, Central 3, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 002. (PAN : AAACM7158E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 07.08.2023 Date of Order : 10.08.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee is directed agai…

Shri Manmohan Singh Kapur, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 68/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. No. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…

Shri Sukhjit Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 67/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

Smt Harneet Kaur Juneja, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 66/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

Ajay Grover, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward- I(1), Faridabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 532/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaajay Grover, Vs. Ito, Prop. Of M/S. R.R. Enterprises, Ward-1(1), Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Faridabad Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Agxpg6032B Ajay Grover, Vs. Pr. Cit, Prop. Of M/S. R.R. Enterprises, Faridabad Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Agxpg6032B

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveeen Sidhrath, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ajay Grover, Vs. ITO, Prop. Of M/s. R.R. Enterprises, Ward-1(1), RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Faridabad Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AGXPG6032B Ajay Grover, Vs. Pr. CIT, Prop. Of M/s. R.R. Enterprises, Faridabad RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AGXPG6032B Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv Revenue by: Shri P. Praveeen Sidhrath, CIT DR Date of Hearing 17/11/2022 Date of pr…

Sh. Ajay Grover, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4113/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveeen Sidhrath, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

Sandeep Hooda, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT - 7, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 30

ITA 397/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmasandeep Hooda, Vs. Pr. Cit-7, C/O. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacph5453J

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 27Section 48Section 50Section 500(1)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 50c(2)

…a Woolen Mills, (2008) 296 ITR 238 (P&H), Paramjit Singh Vs. Pr. CIT (2016) 48 CCH 0199 (Chd), M/s. Refex Industies Ltd Vs. DCIT ITA No. 972/2014 dated 09.09.2014 (Chennai). Sartaj Singh Vs. Pr. CIT (2016) 179 TTJ 17 (Asr) (UO), Jaswinder Singh Vs. CIT (2012) 150 TTJ 33 (Chd), Vikram Kaswan Vs. CIT (2016) 46 CCH 0561 (Chd) to contend that audit objection cannot be basis of exercising revisional powers u/s 263. He specially referred to notice u/s Sh. Sandeep Hooda 154 dated 18.01.2019 to contend that attempt was made on the basis of audit objection to rectify alleged mistake and revisional authority has merely tri…

M/S Samrat Roller Flour Mills Ltd., Alwar vs. Prinicipal Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar

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

ITA 698/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: The Ao To Prove The Creditworthiness Of Investors & Genuineness Of The Transaction.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…. vs. Pr.CIT (HC), SarlabenBhansali Charities Trust Vs. CIT(E) (2017) 51 CCH 464 (Kol.) (Trib.), Surinder Kumar Jain Vs. ITO (2016) 48 CCH 158 (Del.) (Trib.), Dashmesh Motors MuktsarVs. PCIT (2016) 47 CCH 506 (Asr.) (Trib.) and Jaswinder Singh Vs. CIT (2012) 150 TTJ 33 (Chd.) (Trib.) 7. The ld. AR further submitted that it may be noted that the Ld. CIT after considering the fact on record has accepted the investment made by the three companies who have provided the bank statement but doubted the investment made by the remaining 15 companies where bank statement is not available and these companies in response t…

Kumar Pappu Singh, Tanuku vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Eluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 270/VIZ/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.270/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-2014) Sri Kumar Pappu Singh Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of D.No.23-3-26, Sundaram Nagar Income Tax, Sajjapuram Circle-1, Kks Towers, Tanuku Rr Pet, Eluru [Pan : Aeepp2496P] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

…the Ld.Pr.CIT in the revision order, hence there is no application of mind by the Ld.Pr.CIT and without application of mind, the Ld.Pr.CIT is not permitted to take up the case for revision u/s 263. The Ld.AR relied on the decision of Jaswinder Singh Vs. CIT [150 TTJ 33], wherein Hon’ble ITAT held that audit objection 13 I.T.A. No.270 /Viz/2018 Sri Kumar Pappu Singh, Tanuku under no circumstances can be called as record empowering the Commissioner to exercise the jurisdiction 263 of the Act. The Ld.AR also relied on the decision of CIT Vs. Sohana Wollen Mills [296 ITR 238], wherein Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High…

Arabinda Roy, Hooghly vs. C.I.T Kolkata - Xx, Hooghly

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1367/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2008-09

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…he Ld. CIT has initiated the revision proceedings only on the basis of audit objection sue exercise of power under section 263 is not tenable in law and accordingly, the order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s 263 is to be set aside JASWINDER SINGH -VS- C.I.T. (2012) 150 TTJ 33 (CHD)(UO) 33]. The Audit Party is neither authorized nor competent to act as judicial supervisors of the Ld. CIT in discharging his quasi-judicial function under the scheme of statute. The requirement of law for initiating proceeding u/s 263 of the Act is that there must be independent application of mind by the Commissioner which is conspicuously…