← All Phrases

“Section 144(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 144Section 144(3)64 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 144(3) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 144(3)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.
88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court
2,664
citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court
1,656
citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty
128 ITR 294 · 1981 · Supreme Court
628
citing judgments

When the cost of acquisition of a capital asset cannot be determined, the computation mechanism for capital gains fails, and thus no capital gains can be charged. This establishes a broader principle that a charging section cannot operate in the absence of specific machinery provisions for computation.

Tin Box Company v. CIT
249 ITR 216 · 2001 · Supreme Court
624
citing judgments

When an issue is remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the AO must conduct a de novo examination and provide the assessee a full opportunity of being heard. The assessee is bound to comply with the notices issued by the AO.

ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon
321 ITR 362 · 2010 · Supreme Court
623
citing judgments

The issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) within the statutory time limit is mandatory for completing an assessment under Section 143(3), and the failure to do so renders the assessment invalid. This defect is not curable under Section 292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Judgments citing Section 144(3)

M/S Vivek Construciton, Balco Nagar vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, both appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 67/RPR/2026[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 66 & 67/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2023-24) Vivek Construction, C-17, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Housing Board Colony Balco Nagar, Tax, Circle-1(1), Ayakar Bhawan, Korba, Chhattisgarh, 495684. Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Cg - 495001 Pan: Aaffv3390P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. (Adjournment Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Ms. Bharti Singh, Cit-Dr Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: None. (Adjournment petition filed)For Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधरी, "ाियक सद

Vivek Construction, Balco Korba vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, both appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 66/RPR/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 66 & 67/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2023-24) Vivek Construction, C-17, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Housing Board Colony Balco Nagar, Tax, Circle-1(1), Ayakar Bhawan, Korba, Chhattisgarh, 495684. Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Cg - 495001 Pan: Aaffv3390P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. (Adjournment Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Ms. Bharti Singh, Cit-Dr Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: None. (Adjournment petition filed)For Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधरी, "ाियक सद

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore vs. Raj Diamonds, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed &

ITA 1361/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 250

ITANo.1361/Bang/2025 & CO 20/Bang/2025 M/s. Raj Diamonds, Mumbai IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

Jasibai Dayaram Amlani, Amravati vs. DCIT Amravati Circle, Amravati

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 749/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Loya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 40A(2)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH : NAGPUR (through virtual) BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.749/NAG/2025

Narendra Sevantilal Parikh (HUF), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 25(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5233/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi a/w Ms. VinitaFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Sr. D.R
Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7294/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

entertaining the claim of the assessee was upheld. In conformity, the AO passed the impugned final assessment order dated 09.01.2016 under section 144(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act on this issue. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. During the hearing, the learned

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 7393/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32(1)

entertaining the claim of the assessee was upheld. In conformity, the AO passed the impugned final assessment order dated 09.01.2016 under section 144(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act on this issue. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. During the hearing, the learned

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 577/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

entertaining the claim of the assessee was upheld. In conformity, the AO passed the impugned final assessment order dated 09.01.2016 under section 144(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act on this issue. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. During the hearing, the learned

Thermo Fisher Scienftific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 1236/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32(1)

entertaining the claim of the assessee was upheld. In conformity, the AO passed the impugned final assessment order dated 09.01.2016 under section 144(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act on this issue. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. During the hearing, the learned

Bombay Tyres, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical

ITA 6608/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 147Section 250Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Bombay Tyres, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical

ITA 6607/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 147Section 250Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Bombay Tyres, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical

ITA 6606/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 147Section 250Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Bombay Tyres, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical

ITA 6605/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 147Section 250Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT (Int. Taxa-1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 81/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT (Int. Taxa-1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 80/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, Ahmedabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle(Int.Taxn.)-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 244/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

Hi-Lex India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Gurgaon

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4288/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 144(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the Final Assessment Order dated 24/07/2024 passed under Section 144(3) r.w.Section144C(13)r.w. Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The grounds

Indravadan Gamanlal Gandhi, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(1)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 142/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.142/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Indravadan Gamanlal Gandhi बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Vs. At: Areth, Post. Areth, Tal: Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Surat, Mandvi, Surat-394 010 Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpn 9673 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Shaunak Zaveri, Ca राज" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing 10/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Kdp Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2177/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. M Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Acit, Central Circle, Vs. Kdp Infrastructure Ghaziabad Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, D-247/29, Sector-63, Cgo Complex-I, Hapur Gautam Budh Nagar, Chungi, Ghaziabad Noida, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh -201002 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144(3)Section 68

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, DELHI BEFORE SH. M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR

Harshadbhai Maganbhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(3)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 111/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.111/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 (Hybrid Hearing) Harshadbhai Maganbhai Patel Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3)(2), बनाम/ C-1007, Pratisha Tower, Surat, Anavil Business Center, Vs. Sarela Wadi, Ghod-Dod Road, Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat- 395 007 Surat-395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adgpp 3387 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT