“Section 143(1)(a)(iv)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)(iv)322 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(1)(a)(iv) is CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (332 ITR 167), cited in 897 judgments on BharatTax.

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

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.

332 ITR 167 · 2011 · High Court

897

citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment under Section 263 merely because the assessment order does not explicitly reflect an inquiry, or because the Commissioner holds a different opinion. An inquiry, even if considered inadequate, or an assessment based on a plausible view by the Assessing Officer after due examination, does not automatically make the order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT

227 ITR 172 · 1997 · Supreme Court

621

citing judgments

Interest income earned on deposits, particularly before the commencement of business operations or as a requirement for business licensing, is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, and cannot be treated as business income or set off against interest on borrowed funds.

ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd.

343 ITR 329 · 2012 · High Court

438

citing judgments

For exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263, the Commissioner must first find that the Assessing Officer's order is erroneous and unsustainable in law, as this is a condition precedent. An order is not erroneous merely because two views are possible, or if the Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's permissible view, or to simply remit the matter for further enquiries.

CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)

315 ITR 1 · 2009 · Supreme Court

363

citing judgments

Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of land. It is taxable as 'capital gains' and not separately as 'interest income' under the head Income from Other Sources.

Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT

177 ITR 377 · 1989 · Supreme Court

275

citing judgments

Expenditure that provides a commercial advantage of an enduring nature may still be classified as revenue expenditure if its purpose is to facilitate existing trading operations, improve business efficiency, or upgrade existing products, depending on the specific context and objective.

CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd.

222 ITR 344 · 1996 · Supreme Court

223

citing judgments

Unclaimed deposits received in the course of trading transactions and sundry credit balances written back are taxable as business income under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as they constitute a cessation of trading liability.

CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills

296 ITR 238 · 2008 · High Court

180

citing judgments

A mere audit objection, by itself, is insufficient to infer that an Assessing Officer's order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the purpose of initiating revisional proceedings.

CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

404 ITR 1 · 2018 · Supreme Court

164

citing judgments

The waiver of a loan taken for acquiring capital assets is considered a capital receipt and is not taxable as income under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act. The ruling distinguishes between the waiver of trading liabilities and capital liabilities for tax purposes.

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

Elsamex Maintenance Services Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle Gandhinagar, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1215/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Bhupal Rapelli, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)Section 41

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T R SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD

Ravindra Dnyaneshwar Bhujbal, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 14(5), Pune

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

ITA 25/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Seg Automotive India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 670/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2021-22

For Appellant: Shri. Aditya Raipuria, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 154

addition has been made by the CPC as per the report of the tax auditor which falls under the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. Therefore, the addition made by the CPC is correct. Accordingly, we reject the arguments of the learned Counsel. The assessee

Quent Chem, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 6914/MUM/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2023-24 Quent Chem, Deputy Commissioner Of 101, Shiv Dutta, Income Tax, Topiwala Lane, Vs. Circle-41(4)(1), Goregaon West, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400104. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan : Aaafq3430G Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Bhavya Sundesha For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-06-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 30-10-2024, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Computing Income From Business Or Profession Of Rs.3,72,70,389/-. The Assessing Officer Has Added An Income Of Rs.78,61,560/- In The Computation Sheet By Passing An Order U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. This Amount Refers To The Interest Paid To The Partners By The Partnership Firm. This Interest Of Rs.78,61,558/- Has Been Correctly Disclosed In The Computation Of Income & Also In The Income Tax Return.

For Appellant: Shri Bhavya SundeshaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

Umakant Gajanan Foundation, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Pune

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 863/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.863/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24 Umakant Gajanan Foundation, V The Income Tax Officer, E-3/5, Shirine Garden, Opp.Iti, S Ward-1(1), Pune. Aundh, Pune – 411007. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaatu5190M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpallil – Addl.Cit(Dr) – Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2025

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

relevant to AY 2023-24 was clearly not allowed as application/expenditure and was therefore correctly treated as adjustment as per provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act.” Unquote. 4.2.1 Aggrieved by the Order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Assessee has filed present appeal. 4.3 We have perused

Ranbir Singh, Haryana vs. Ward-2, Ambala, Range Code-65, AO Number-94, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Haryana

In the result, Assessee’s penalty is dismissed

ITA 851/CHANDI/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 851/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Ranbir Singh, Ao, बनाम K203,2Nd Floor, Awho, Ward-2, Vikram Vihar, Sector 27, Ambala. Vs. Panchkula, Haryana-134116 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Avwps0410K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Hemant Jain, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14-06-2024 Of Ld. Addl /Jcit (Appeals), Mudurai Folder For A.Y. 2021-22. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 43BSection 851

payment dates of employees' contributions towards Provident Fund without recommending any disallowance. The CPC relied on this report to make additions under section 143(1)(a)(iv), which is unjustifiable since the auditor did not indicate any disallowance. Hence, the addition based on this report exceeds the permissible scope

Shri Jagdish Kumar Gulia, Bhopal vs. Thre Asstt.Directore of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 245/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

challenge the orders made by the Assessing Officer, CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT, disallowing an adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) read with section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act in respect of delayed remittance of employees' contributions to Employee State Insurance (ESI) and Provident Fund ... departed from. 8. Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. (Supra) holds that the deductions can be claimed or adjustments can be made under section 143(1)(a)(iv), read with section 36(1)(va) only when the employer deposits the contributions in the employees accounts on or before the due date prescribed

M/S Daulataram Engineering Services P.Ltd, Mandideep vs. The ADIT/CPC, Bangalore

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

ITA 244/IND/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 May 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 260ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Such Media Publication P Ltd, CIT (A) NFAC Delhi vs. NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

ITA 66/IND/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 May 2025

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 36(1)(va)

dates prescribed under PF/ESI laws, made by AO in the intimation passed u/s 143(1) by resorting to the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) r.w.s. section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. While the assessee does not have any dispute against ... such adjustment could not have been made by AO in the intimation passed u/s 143(1) by resorting to the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv). 4. We have heard learned Representatives of both sides on this limited issue. 5. It emerged during hearing that the issue has already

Infosoft Global P Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 501/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'सी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री जॉजज

Checkmate Facility and Electronic Solutions Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 875/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand Vasant

Genesys International Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC Bangalore, Bangaloe

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

ITA 634/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

facts furnished by the appellant for audit. Therefore, the adjustments carried out were well within the ambit of the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(Iv) which reads as follows: "Assessment. 143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under

Indus Biotech Limited, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

ITA 122/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

Co-Operative Cane Development Unian, Ltd., Lakhipur Kheri vs. ITO Ward-3(4), Lakhipur-1

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 348/LKW/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 253(3)Section 80ASection 80P

Income was not filed within the due date. (ii)The disallowance u/s 80(P) was outside the scope and ambit of section 143(1)(a)(iv) for A.Y. 2019-20. It is seen from intimation order that the due date of filing of original return of income

Samsung C & T Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2924/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: BEFORESHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234B

234B and 234C needs to be deleted. 3. The assessee’s sole substantive argument during the course of hearing alleges violation of section 143(1)(a)(iv) that both the lower authorities herein have erred in law and facts in disallowing its club membership/entrance Fee of Rs.7,91,398/- despite

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhaina vs. Homeland City Project Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 559/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 37

circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that in terms of the provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Income Tax Act 1961 it is mandatory that during the course of processing of the income tax return the total income or loss

ACIT 2 2 1, Mumbai vs. Learningmate Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3659/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2022-23 Acit-2(2)(1), Learningmate Solutions Private 5Th Floor, Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Level 7 To 10, M.K.Road, 74 Techno Park, Mumbai. 74/Ii, C Cross Road, Midc, Marol Industrial Area, Andheri (East) Mumbai Pan : Aaacl9067F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Shri Hardik Nirmal & Ms. Tejal Saraf Revenue By : Dr. K.R. Subhash, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-12-2024

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 28

Accordingly, while processing the return of income filed by the assessee, the CPC made adjustment of the above said amount as per section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. 3. The assessee challenged the above said adjustment by filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), contending that

Bird Execujet Airport Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1017/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

143(1). In this regard it is submitted as under: (1) Scope of Adjustment u/s 143(1 )(a)(iv) - Provisions of section 143(1 )(a)(iv) as applicable to the year under consideration merely provided for an adjustment in respect of "disallowance of expenditure" indicated in the audit report ... Delhi High Court in CIT vs Aimil Ltd 321 ITR 508(Del)". Therefore clearly this adjustment is outside the scope of section 143(1 )(a)(iv) as the Tax Auditor himself did not make any disallowance.” 5. Ld. AR further made alternative plea as under :- “B. Without Prejudice

Bird Worldwide Flight Service Mumbai Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1010/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

Bird Worldwide Flight Service Mumbai Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1009/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 38