“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)

Sri. Panati Vinaykumar, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 68/BANG/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Sri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaiana Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

ITA No.68/Bang/2024 Sri Panati Vinaykumar, Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax vs. Press2 Drycleaning and Laundry Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2765/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

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

towards the Employee Contribution to 2 Press2 Dry Cleaning and Laundry Pvt. Ltd provident Fund and ESIC is outside the scope of section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Income Tax Act. 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in treating that

Ayur Green Ayurveda Hospitals Private Limited, Malappuram vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 565/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmiayurgreen Ayurveda Hospsitals Vs Dcit, Private Limited Cpc, Door No. 1/301 Ayurgreen Bengaluru. Ayurveda Hospitals, Kaladi Mlp Edappal, Malappuram-679585. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica 4294 M

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 30Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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 ... where the condition of s. 36(1)(va) is apparently not met. We see no reason for it to be not so. Section 143(1)(a)(iv) provides for disallowance of any expenditure indicated in the audit report where not taken into account in computing the total income

Jaiprakash Choudhary, Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 310/AHD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Jai Prakash Choudhary, Vadodara vs. The ADIT CPC, Bengluru

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

ITA 312/AHD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Jai Prakash Choudhary, Vadodara vs. The ADIT CPC, Bengluru

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

ITA 311/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Arvinder Paul Jit Singh Gill, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 325/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Nalin Nohria & Shri B.K.Nohria,CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR

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

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. 5. Against the said findings

Rajesh Motors (Cars) Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 5(1), Jaipur

ITA 649/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Godha CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Varian Medical Systems International (India) Private Limited, Mumbaiqqq vs. Assessment Unit NFAC Cetnre ITO, Ministry of Finance Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 2496/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/w Shri Siddesh

Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 37(1)Section 68Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A

Shree Stones Crusher, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 750/JPR/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl CIT-DR

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

payment. Hence, in view of the above, it may be said that the ITO CPC is wrong in invoking the provision of section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Income Tax Act on the fallacy of presumption that the auditor has disallowed the employee contribution to EPF /ESI.  Further

M/S. the Kothari Wheels, Pune vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore, Banglore

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

ITA 1420/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

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

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

Ansal Housing Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 438/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaansal Housing Ltd, Vs. Acit, 606, 6Th Floor, Indra Circle-1(1), Prakash, 21, Barakhamba New Delhi Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaca0377R Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv Shri Sudarshan Roy, Adv Revenue By: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 31/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr DR

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

fact indicated by the Tax Ansal Housing Ltd Auditor in the tax audit report which is a pre-requisite to invoke section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act.” 3. We find that the original grounds and additional ground raised by the assessee is only challenging the disallowance made

Kathleen Confectioners, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-32, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1187/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri N. S. Saini, Advocate & Shri SonuFor Respondent: Shri Loviesh Shelley, JCIT, DR

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

ACIT’ in ITA No.2376/Mum/2022 order dated 07.12.2022, wherein, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has held that as per the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act, the Assessing Officer while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act could have made the disallowance of expenditure ... merely recording of facts and a mere statement made by the tax auditor in his tax audit. That the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act would come into operation when the tax auditor had suggested for a disallowance of expenses or increase in income

M/S. Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Deputy Commiissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 267/NAG/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Jaika Automobiles & Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Nagpur. Finance Pvt. Ltd., Jaika Building, Commercial Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur- 440001. Pan : Aaacj3178K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.267/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore. Ltd., Jaika Building, Commercial Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur- 440001. Pan : Aaacj4462A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K. P. Dewani Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’) Dated 15.03.2022 & 23.12.2021 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.267/Nag/2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri K. P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

M/S. Jaika Automobiles and Finance Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 193/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K. P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Telecrats India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 605/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

vide order 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. Similar decisions have been rendered by other Hon'ble Tribunals also as in the case of Ms.Nalina Dyave Gowda Vs Assistant Director of Income Tax in ITA No.685/Bang/2022, the Hon'ble ITAT SMC Bench

Telecrats India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 574/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Kandarp Tradelinks and Services Private Limited, Vki, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed,

ITA 561/JPR/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 250(5)Section 36(1)(va)

143(1) were deleted by Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench, holding such adjustment in the processing to be outside the scope of Section 143(1)(a)(iv) The said decision has been rendered by Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench subsequent to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate ... 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

DCIT Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb Jaipur vs. Kandarp Tradelinks and Services Private Limited, V K I Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed,

ITA 560/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 250(5)Section 36(1)(va)

Sm Workforce Private Limited, Bhiwadi vs. ITO, Ward, Bhiwadi

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

ITA 426/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143Section 154Section 2Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A