“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)

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

ITA 109/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr NK Rander [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sourabh Nayak [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80I

notice in accordance with law. 14. The appellant assertion that, the impugned addition by way of prima-facie adjustment in terms of section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act is impermissible in law finds negated by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court rendered in ‘Khatau Junkar

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

ITA 108/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr NK Rander [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sourabh Nayak [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80I

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune.

ITA 107/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr NK Rander [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sourabh Nayak [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80I

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune

ITA 103/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr NK Rander [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sourabh Nayak [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80I

Stellar Refractories Private Limited, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur

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

ITA 420/NAG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

M/S Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT/ACIT (Cen.)-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 355/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR

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

return was processed by the CPC and order under section 143(1) was passed wherein the disallowance invoking the provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(iv) was made for fault of the assessee not to pay the employees’ contribution to PF/ESI before the prescribed due date under the relevant statue ... 1)(va) of the Act is strictly in accordance with law and clearly comes under the prima facie adjustment as envisaged under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act and therefore the order passed under section 143(1) by the CPC was confirmed. ITA 355/CHD/2022

New Balance It Services India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Income Tax Officer(1)- Circle 2, Punepune, Pune

ITA 246/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 0245 & 0246/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 & 2022-23 New Balance It Services India Pvt. Ltd. Level-1, Wing-A, Tower-06, Cybercity, Magarpatta, Pune-411013. Pan : Aaccn5091R . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Income Tax Officer-1, Circle-2, Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rajendra Agiwal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Twin Appeals Are Instituted U/S 253(1)(Aa) Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging The Respective First Appellate Orders Dt. 19/12/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appels [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2022-23 [‘Ay’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Separate Orders Of Intimation Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr Rajendra Agiwal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 145Section 145(2)Section 250Section 253(1)(aa)Section 28

No.245 & 246/PUN/2024 12. The appellant assertion that, the impugned addition by way of prima-facie adjustment in terms of section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act is impermissible in law finds negated by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court rendered in ‘Khatau Junkar Ltd. Vs DCIT

New Balance It Services India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Income Tax Officer(1)- Circle 2, Pune

ITA 245/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr Rajendra Agiwal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 145Section 145(2)Section 250Section 253(1)(aa)Section 28

Vpssr Facilities, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-49(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3711/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Cit(A) When Discussed The Same By Applying The Judgment Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cit-1, In Civil Appeal No.2833 Of 2016 & Ors.

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 37(1)

held that disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) on the basis of Tax Audit Report in Form 3CD is a permissible adjustment under Section 143(1)(a)(iv) as well as under section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. It is further held that the insertion of the words, "increase ... income" in section 143(1)(a)(iv) w.e.f. 01.04.2021 will have no impact on such disallowance. 7.43. The disallowance made u/s.36(1(va) vide intimation u/s. 143(1) stand confirmed in the following cases, to mention a few: (i) Pravin Malshi Shah Vs Circle-23(1) (ITAT Mumbai

Shri Madhopur Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti Limited, Shrimadhopur vs. Income Tax Officer, Neem Ka Thana

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 749/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agrawal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

situation, cannot be reason enough to disregard the binding views of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Court. To that extent, the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) must be read down. What essentially follows is the adjustments under section 143(1)(a) in respect of” disallowance of expenditure indicated

M/S. Advaith Motors Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 525/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri H. Vinay Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinath S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

reverting back to the contention of the assessee that the adjustment made is not within the scope and ambit of section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act, it is necessary to look into the said provision, which reads as under : "143. (1) Where a return has been made under ... amount under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Thus, in our considered opinion, the adjustment clearly falls within the ambit of section 143(1)(a)(iv) read with Explanation (a). Therefore, we reject assessee's contention in this regard. 15. Further, in our view, the concept of prima facie

Joyo Plastics, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-24 (1)

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

ITA 4405/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Joyo Plastics, Acit Circle-24(1), 104, Jai Antariksh Co-Op Society, 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Makwana Road, Marol Naka, Chamber, Lalbaug, Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aaafj 0286 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ajay R Sing/Akshay Pawar : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2024 : 13/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R Sing/Akshay Pawar

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

thus the AO was not authorised to invoke section 37(1) of the Act, thus the AO was not authorised to invoke section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. 4. On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) he contrary ... fine for violation of law for time being in force, therefore, the orce, therefore, the amount being prima-facie -facie disallowable under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of disallowable under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. 5.4 In view of above discussion, t 5.4 In view of above

Moog Motion Controls Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 184/BANG/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Moog Motion Controls Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Site No.42-43, Doraisanipalya Circle – 4(1)(1), Village, Vs. Bengaluru. Opp. Oracle (Kalyani Magnum), Bilekahalli, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aadcm 3828 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas K. P, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivas K. P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 90

M/S Barnala Builders and Consultant, Zirakpur vs. DCIT/ACIT (Cen)-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 274/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 May 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

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

order under section 143(1) dt. 19/11/2019 was passed wherein the disallowance Rs. 2,46,952/- invoking the provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(iv) was made for fault of the assessee to pay the employees contribution to PF/ESI before the prescribed due date under the relevant statue. Against ... 1)(va) of the Act is strictly in accordance with law and clearly comes under the prima facie adjustment as envisaged under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act and therefore the order passed under section 143(1) by the CPC was confirmed. 3. Against the said findings

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune vs. Sandvik Coromant India Pvt Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1072/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1072/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Dy.Commissioner Of Sandvik Coromant India Pvt. Income Tax, Circle-8, Vs Ltd., Pune. Mumbai Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411012. Pan: Aaccs6638K Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Cross Objection No.7/Pun/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sandvik Coromant India The Dy.Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. Mumbai Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411012. Pan: Aaccs6638K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Patakh – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 15/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Ita 1072/Pn/2023 Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Co No.7/Pun/2024 Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] U/S.250 Of The Act, For A.Y.2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 43B

that in the Audit Report there was no mention of any such expenditure for which disallowance was required. Ld.AR took us through section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. Ld.AR also took us through the Audit Report that there was no expenditure indicated in the Audit Report which ... this case, it is observed that the ld.ADIT(CPC) had made disallowance u/s.143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. The section 143(1)(a)(iv) allows the Assessing Officer to consider the Disallowance of any Expenditure indicated in the Audit Report but not considered in the computation of Income. Thus

Chawla Saree Depot, Nagpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 124/NAG/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH : NAGOUR [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT ITAT : PUNE] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH

Ramkripal Dwivedi, Indore vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru, Bangaluru

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 294/IND/2023[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Indore03 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2021-22 Ramkripal Dwivedi, Adit, 822, Vijay Nagar Cpc, बनाम/ New Gori Nagar, Bangalore Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aekpd4306G Assessee By Shri N.D. Patwa, Adv. & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03.05.2024

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies” Further, the impugned disallowance is very much covered in section 143(1)(a)(iv) which empowers the AO to make adjustment for disallowance of Page 2 of 3 Shri Ramkripal Dwivedi, Indore. ITA No. 294/Ind/2023-

Goribi Abdul Karim Nadaf, Pune vs. Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), Addl JCIT (A) -1 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 517/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY

Goribi Abdul Karim Nadaf, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl JCIT (A) 1 - Ahmedabad, Addl/JCIT (A) Ahmedabad

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

ITA 516/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY

M/S Ivp Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 6(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4363/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2021-22 M/S. Ivp Limited. S.N.Redji Marg, Ghorupdeo, Byculla East,Mumbai – 400 033 Pan:Aaaci-0992-A - Appellant Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac),Delhi Income Tax Officer6(3)(1) Mumbai. - Respondent Appellant By : Shri Apurva Shah Respondent By : Shri Suni Mathews, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Apurva ShahFor Respondent: Shri Suni Mathews, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 41Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year 2021-22