“processing under section 143(1)”

Assessment ProceduresSection 143(1)Section 143(1)158 judgments

The decision most relied on for processing under section 143(1) is CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another (118 ITR 461), cited in 1,656 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on processing under section 143(1)

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. AIMIL Ltd.

321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court

1,629

citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court

1,392

citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia

352 ITR 493 · 2013 · High Court

537

citing judgments

Section 153A can be invoked to reassess income for all years under consideration prior to a search, even if returns for those years were processed under Section 143(1)(a). The Assessing Officer has the power to reassess total income in such cases without fetters.

Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT

332 ITR 340 · 2011 · High Court

359

citing judgments

Payments for the use of equipment, such as satellite transponders, do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or under applicable tax treaties, especially when there is no transfer of the right to use a process or underlying technology.

DIT v. Ericsson A.B

343 ITR 470 · 2012 · High Court

256

citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software or reimbursement of data processing costs do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act or Article 12(3) of a DTAA where there is no transfer of copyright or rendering of services that "make available" technical knowledge. This position was later upheld by the Supreme Court.

Jiji Varghese v. ITO(TDS) & Ors.

443 ITR 267 · 2022 · High Court

220

citing judgments

Section 234E fee cannot be imposed for periods prior to June 1, 2015. This applies even when the processing of the return under Section 200A(c) occurred before that date.

CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd.

383 ITR 1 · 2016 · Supreme Court

203

citing judgments

Fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii) can include payments for fully automated services even without direct human interface, as modern technological developments blur the specific human element in such processes.

Judgments citing processing under section 143(1)

Kedambadi Milk Producers Co-Operative Women Society Limited, Kedambadi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Puttur, Puttur

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 280/BANG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Kantila, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 154Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80p

Section 80P, effective from April 1, 2018. b) On or after April 1, 2021, the disallowance of such a claim during automated processing under Section 143(1) would specifically fall Page 6 of 14 under Section 143(1)(a)(v), a provision introduced to address this issue. c) Further , sixth

Chikkamudnoor Milk Producers Co-Operative Society Limited, Chikkamudnoor vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Kantila, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 154Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80p

Dusters Total Solutions Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 980/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 80J

fully protected. Hence, the substantive compliance has been achieved. 28.5 We also note that the disallowance was made through an adjustment in processing under section 143(1) of the Act. It is now well accepted that such adjustments can be made only when there is a clear and obvious error

Dusters Total Solutions Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 653/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 80J

Dusters Total Solutions Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 652/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Smt. Kavita Jha, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 80J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Goswami Bhagwan Lal Educational Society, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward Exemption, Faridabad

ITA 2238/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10Section 10(230)Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

report is curable. 10. We also find merit in the arguments of the Ld. AR that the disallowance of entire expenses in processing under section 143(1) of the Act is not only against the accounting principle but also against the provisions of the Act. We are of the considered ... opinion that the disallowance of entire expenses in processing under section 143(1) of the Act is also not justified. We are of the considered view that the finding in the impugned order that the appellant assessee is not eligible to claim exemption under section 11 of the Act does

Rose Trust, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 725/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.725/Del/2025, A.Y. 2023-24 Rose Trust, Dy. Commissioner Of B-60/61, C/O Bajaj Auto Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-49(1), Naraina Ind. Area, Phase-Ii, Vs. Civic Centre, Mito Road New Delhi-110028 New Delhi Pan: Aaatr0380G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Vasanti Patel, Ar Sh. Mahendra Gohel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2023-24 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.12.2024 Of The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Mysore [‘Addl. Cit(A)’].

Section 11Section 115ASection 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 2

income of Rs.6,43,41,730/- (including dividend income of Rs.6,09,34,668/-) of the relevant year. The said ITR was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, wherein the tax liability of Rs.2,75,02,229/- was determined as against the admitted tax liability of Rs.2 ... Thus, the issue in dispute here is only the levy of surcharge @ 37% on the income Rs.34,07,065/-. Aggrieved with the processing under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal as under: - “8.1 The appellant

Gfcl Ev Products Limited, Panchmahal vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1759/AHD/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(b)Section 250

return of income for the Assessment Year 2023-24 on 30.10.2023 declaring a total income of Rs.4,44,816/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru, vide intimation dated 26.04.2024, accepting the returned income. However ... claim the benefit of section 115BAB. As regards the assessee's contention that no opportunity of being heard was given prior to processing under section 143(1) of the Act, the CIT(A) observed that the returned income was accepted as filed and that no adjustment to total income

Syed Asif Ali, Lucknow vs. DCIT-1, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 249/LKW/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Oct 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2021-22 Syed Asif Ali, Vs. Dcit-1, 4/19 Vikas Khand, Gomti Nagar, U.P. Lucknow Pan: Aedpa5031J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Mazhar Akram, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Addl / Jcit(A), Ahmedabad Dated 27.01.2025, Wherein The Ld. Addl / Jcit Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Dated 22.07.2022, In Limine. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ld. Cit(A)"] Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Without Looking Into The Merit Of The Case. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Aggregated Additions Of Rs. 3,04,76,240/-Made By The Assessing Authority To The Returned Income Of The Assessee While Processing The Return Of Income U/S 143(1) Of The I.T. Act By Grossly Ignoring The Settled Law That The Provisions Contained U/S 143(1) Of The Act Does Not Empower The Assessing Officer To Make Any Addition Which Is In The Nature Of Debate & Discussions & Also Requires Detailed Explanations & Submissions From The Assessee. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,33,88,200/-Made By The Ld. A.O. On The Wrong Premise That The Amount Of The Contingent Liabilities Of Rs.2,33,88,200/- Disclosed By The Auditors At Column 21(G) Of Their Form 3Cd Were Debited To The Profit & Loss Account Of The Year Under Consideration Ignoring The Fact That It Was Just A Disclosure Of The Contingent

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Mazhar Akram, CIT DR

Section 143(1)

demand of Rs. 1,64,89,370/- was created upon the assessee during the processing under section 143(1). 3. Aggrieved with the said adjustments made during processing, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. JCIT(A), which was transferred to JCIT(A)-1, Ahmedabad under the e-appeals

Hmshost Hospitality Services Bharath Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2605/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Khirendra Mohan Gupta – Advocate and Shri Divjot Oberoi - CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 43B

only ₹4,73,343.00 only. Thus, the CPC was therefore justified in making an addition of the balance ₹3,32,571 while processing under section 143(1). The ld. DR submitted that provision for gratuity is not allowable as deduction and hence the action

Upasani Super Speciality Hospital Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 901/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Upasani Super Speciality Hospital Pvt. Ltd., ₹9,88,132/–, which had been claimed in the return of income but was disallowed while processing under Section 143(1). 3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of running a hospital. With effect from

Income Tax Officer Ward-22(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gopal Ramchand Kanjani, Mumbaifh

ITA 733/MUM/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramaniam, AR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

return of income for AY 2012-13 on 29.09.2012 declaring a total income of Rs. 7,43,360/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the AO received information from DDIT (Inv.) as per which a search was carried out at the business premises ... assessment, for that assessment year: 8. In assessee's case it is an admitted position that the return of the assessee was processed under section 143(1) and assessment has not been carried out under section 143(3). Further it is also an admitted fact that the impugned purchases

Moneeflo Technologies Private Limited, Haryana vs. CIT/ITO/Ward 2(4) Gurgaon, Range 53, Haryana

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4844/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2024-25

Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80I

Apex Court rulings and authoritative tribunal decisions. 4. That delay in uploading Form 10CCB was procedural. The Form 10CCB was furnished before processing under section 143(1), fulfilling the substantive compliance. 5. That the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the legislative intent behind section 80-1AC, which aims

Jubilant Generics Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(1)(1), G.B. Nagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 2004/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 92C

this appeal was opposed by the Ld. CIT-DR on the reasoning that this would have been challenged after receipt of processing under section 143(1) of the Act as that was an appealable order; hence, this issue, at this stage, could not be raised here. On the other hand

Income Tax Officer, Mohali Punjab vs. Taj Land Developefrs and Promoters Private Limited, Sector Mohali Punjab

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 606/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 1Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151

believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. This basic condition precedent is applicable whether the return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act by intimation or assessed by scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Act. Further, the reasons to believe that income chargeable ... Revenue. 7. Thus, we are of the view that even in cases where the return of income has been accepted by processing under Section 143(1) of the Act, reopening of an assessment can only be done when the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income chargeable

Quality Enabled Remote Solutions (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-20(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 4107/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekquality Enabled Remote Solutions (P) Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 20 (3), Ugf – 61A, World Trade Centre, New Delhi. Babur Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan :Aaacq0881A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Krishnan, Advocate Shri Harshit Chauhan, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.07.2025 Date Of Order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 16.08.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Order Passed By Id. Cit(A) Is Wrong Both On Facts & In Law.

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

under :- “7 Thus, we are of the view that even in cases where the return of income has been accepted by processing under Section 143(1) of the Act, reopening of an assessment can only be done when the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income chargeable ... escaped assessment. The mere fact that the return has been processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, 9 does not give the Assessing Officer a carte blanche to issue a reopening notice. The condition precedent of reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on correct

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Haresh Kumar Manjibhai Patel, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue fails and is dismissed in its entirety

ITA 3633/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69C

assessee had sold a portion of his SRDL shares. The resulting LTCG was duly accepted by the Revenue in processing under section 143(1), thereby evidencing a consistent pattern of genuine transactions. Once the purchase of shares in 2013 stood accepted as genuine, it was wholly incongruous, counsel urged

Sri Sarada Peetham Charitable Trust, Visakhapatnam vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 792/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.792/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2023-24) Sri Sarada Peetham Charitable Income Tax Officer Exemption, Vs. Ward-1(4), Hyderabad. Trust, Visakhapatnam. Pan:Aagts3745N (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(1)

143(1) on 05.09.2024. The Ld. AR argued that once the revised audit report was ITA No.792/Hyd/2025 4 filed before completion of processing under section 143(1), the CPC ought to have considered the same. He relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy ... dated 25.06.2025, where the Tribunal allowed exemption even though the audit report was filed beyond the due date but before completion of processing under section 143(1). In the present case, the assessee’s case stands on a stronger footing because the original audit report was filed in time

Vimal Sureshbhai Mishra, Ahmedabad vs. Central Processing Unit, Bangaluru, Present Jurisi. the ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1043/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 234B(1)

total income of ₹20,47,420/- and duly paid applicable taxes on the return of income filed by him. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act vide intimation order dated 29.10.2024 wherein interest under sections 234A and 234B was charged, resulting in a tax demand ... Vimal Sureshbhai Mishra vs. ITO Asst. Year –2022-23 - 4– corresponding tax liability on the same date. The return was subsequently processed under section 143(1) on 29.10.2024, and a demand was raised on account of interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Act. The assessee is aggrieved with

Rajesh Kumar Garg, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-49(1), Delhi

ITA 971/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH 'E': NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI