← All Phrases

“Section 143(1)(a)(ii)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)(ii)275 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(1)(a)(ii) is CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302), cited in 540 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(1)(a)(ii)

CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd.
348 ITR 302 · 2012 · Supreme Court
540
citing judgments

Goodwill, whether arising from an amalgamation or a slump sale, is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act. While the assessee must prove the existence and valuation of such goodwill, it is recognized as a depreciable asset.

CIT v. Bharat Hotels Ltd.
410 ITR 417 · 2019 · High Court
486
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI, if paid beyond the due date prescribed by the respective welfare fund statutes, are not allowed as a deduction under the Income Tax Act.

Munjal Sales Corporation v. CIT
298 ITR 298 · 2008 · Supreme Court
191
citing judgments

The Supreme Court approves the mixed fund theory, holding that no interest disallowance is warranted under section 36(1)(iii) if investments or advances are made from the assessee's own non-interest bearing funds, even when mixed funds are available. This presumption applies when non-interest bearing funds are sufficient to meet the investments.

Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P
2 SCC 585 · 1981 · Reported
190
citing judgments

An Explanation to a statutory provision can either clarify an existing ambiguity in the main provision or add to and widen its scope.

CIT v. S.G. Pgnatale
124 ITR 391 · 1980 · High Court
181
citing judgments

An Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act that widens the scope of the provision, rather than merely clarifying it, cannot be applied retrospectively to assessment periods prior to its effective date. Assessments must be made according to the law in force at the relevant time.

CIT v. Microlabs Ltd.
383 ITR 490 · 2016 · High Court
175
citing judgments

If an assessee possesses interest-free funds exceeding investments in tax-free securities, it is presumed that investments are made from these own funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii). Additionally, weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) is computed on the gross expenditure incurred, not net expenditure after reducing income earned.

(ii) CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers
3 SCC 57 · 2003 · Reported
131
citing judgments

Courts must reject interpretations that defeat the plain intention of the legislature, even if language is imprecise. A statute must be read as a whole, construing provisions harmoniously to avoid rendering any part otiose or a dead letter.

CIT v. UTI Bank Ltd.
32 Taxmann.com 370 · 2013 · High Court
131
citing judgments

If an assessee possesses sufficient interest-free funds, it is presumed that investments yielding exempt income were made from these funds, therefore disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A is not justified.

Judgments citing Section 143(1)(a)(ii)

United Church, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Visakhapatnam

ITA 70/VIZ/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 69 & 70/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) United Church 60-8-3, Prakash Nagar Malkapuram Visakhapatnam – 530011 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaatu6130B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) V. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward, Visakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri N. Gopi Krishna, Sr.Ar सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 16.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2025 आदेश /Order Per Shri S Balakrishnan: 1. These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Different Orders Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax/Addl/Jcit(A)-10, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short "Ld.Cit(A)" Vide Respective Din &Orderno. As Stated Below: -

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ, विशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (HYBRID HEARING) श्री ललित

Varadayampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Coimbatore vs. Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2799/CHNY/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2799/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Varadayampalayam Primary Agricultural Ito बनाम/ Co-Operative Credit Society Non-Corporate Ward-1(4), #31, Kattampatty, Ss Kullam Via Coimbatore. Vs. Coimbatore Dist. 641 107. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabak-0997-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. R. Reshma (Advocate) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ashwin D. Gowda (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Thane [Cit(A)] Dated 26-09-2024 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 30-09-2020. 2. In The Intimation U/S 143(1), The Assessee Was Denied Deduction U/S 80P For Rs.2.06 Lacs Since The Return Of Income Was Filed With A Delay. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 31-03-2019 Which Was Processed U/S 143(1) On 30-09-2020 Denying Impugned Deductions To The Assessee. During Appellate Proceedings, The Assessee Relied On Certain Case Laws

For Appellant: Ms. R. Reshma (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D. Gowda (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

belated one. This is mechanical exercise and one that can be carried out by the CPC, very much within the scope of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. 9. The conduct of the petitioners is also relevant. Not only have the returns been filed belatedly but the petitioners ... belated one. This is mechanical exercise and one that can be carried out by the CPC, very much within the scope of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. Considering this binding judicial precedent, the adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) could not be faulted with. 5. Having said

Allappalayam Paccs, Coimbatore vs. Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2795/CHNY/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2795/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2019-20) K 1853 Allapalayam Primary Agricultural Ito बनाम/ Co-Operative Credit Society Non-Corporate Ward-1(3), Ruthriampalayam, Allapalayam Post Coimbatore. Vs. Annur Tk, Coimbatore Dist. 641 653 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabak-0988-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. R. Reshma (Advocate) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ashwin D. Gowda (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025

For Appellant: Ms. R. Reshma (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D. Gowda (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P(2)(a)

belated one. This is mechanical exercise and one that can be carried out by the CPC, very much within the scope of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. 9. The conduct of the petitioners is also relevant. Not only have the returns been filed belatedly but the petitioners ... belated one. This is mechanical exercise and one that can be carried out by the CPC, very much within the scope of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. Considering this binding judicial precedent, the adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) could not be faulted with. 6. Having said