“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)

Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu, Baloda Bazar, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bhatapara, Bhatapara

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of our observations above

ITA 109/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Raipur04 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.109/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu Main Road, Raseda, Baloda Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Bayps7721N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Khapradih, Bhatapara ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

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

automatically attracted. The AO CPC has, in my humble view, acted in accordance with provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act and the adjustment made by the AO CPC in the order u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act is found justified and as per the relevant ... justifications enough for any disallowance of expenditure under the Act? As we deal with this question, we are alive to the fact section 143(1)(a)(iv) specifically an adjustment in respect of “disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total

Dipen Kumarpal Parekh, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, New Delhi

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

ITA 1702/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledipen Kumarpal Parekh Vs. Assessing Officer, 603, Patel Niwas, Sainath Nfac, New Delhi Road, Malad (W) Mumbai – 4000064. Pan/Gir No. : Aadpp6112D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ashwin Kashinath.Ar Respondent By : Shri R.P. Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Kashinath.ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Veena.DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

taking into account in the computation of total income in the return” as is sine qua non for disallowance of Section 143(1)(a)(iv). When the due date under Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) is judicially held to be not decisive for determining the disallowance in the computation ... 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, or when no findings were to be given on the scope of permissible adjustments under section 143(1)(a)(iv). That is not the situation before us. We, therefore, see no need to deal with that aspect of the matter at this stage

Sadanand Champakrao Manekar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Begaluru

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

ITA 1516/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesadanand Champak Rao Vs. Dcit, Cpc Manekar Bangalore.-560500 C/O Sanjay Vhanbatte & Compnay, Cts No. 245, C/1, First Floor, Mahalaxmi Bank Bldg, Near Kelavkar Hospital Tarabai Park, Mumbai – 416003. Pan/Gir No. : Acepm7834N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Bhavesh Jain.Ar Respondent By : Shri Rp Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. Sadanand Champakrao Manekar, Mumbai. 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru By Way Of Adjustment U/S 143(1)(A) In Respect Of Employees' Contribution To Provident Fund & Esic Payment Of Rs. 14,21,489/- As Not Being Allowable As Deduction Under Section 36(1)(Va) As The Contribution Has Been Deposited With The Respective Authority After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Law. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A), Erred In Not Accepting The Contention Of The Appellant That Such Action Of The Dcit Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of The Adjustments Prescribed Under Section 143(1)(A). The Appellant Craves Leave To Add To, Amend, Alter, Modify, Delete Or Add A New Ground Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh Jain.ARFor Respondent: Shri RP Veena.DR

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

M/S. Nilamber Dyeing and Bleaching Mills Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1990/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalenilamber Dyeing & Vs. Ito Circle 5(2)(1), Bleaching Mills Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, 12/2, Sethia Bhavan Dr. M.K.Road, Dd Sathe Marg, Mumbai-400020. Girgaon-400004, Mumbai Pan/Gir No. : Aabcn8531H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ms. R.M. Brindha.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/ Cit(A) Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. R.M. Brindha.DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Nilamber Dyeing and Vs

Jaimal Singh and Sons, Pipariya vs. The ACIT Cp Bangalore, Bengalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 36/IND/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Indore23 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanijaimal Singh & Sons Acit, Cpc, 159 Nehru Ward, Pipariya Bangalore Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafj 8045J Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23.08.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 438Section 43B

u/s.143(1) have been specified in that section and there is no scope of any independent verification, discussion or argument. As per section 143(1)(a)(iv), addition is to be made by disallowing expenditure indicated in the tax audit report but not taken into account in computing the total

Laurels (India) Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), Delhi

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2887/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.M. Garglaurels (India) Impex Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, C.O. M/S. Shri Ram ‘G’ Circle-13(1), Assocaites, B-9/B, First Floor, Delhi Kalka Ji, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacs9311B

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

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

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE Shri C.M. Garg, Judicial Member Laurels (India) Impex Pvt. Ltd

Encotec Energy (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 152/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaencotec Energy (India) Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 90-A, Pocket 1, Mayur Vihar, Circle-7(1), Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacce1338E Assessee By : Shri Baldev Raj, Ca Revenue By : Shri N. K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17/08/2023

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR

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

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE Shri C.M. Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

M/S Veejay Facility Management Pvt. Ltd, Panaji vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1/PAN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji08 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH : PANAJI (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

Reloy Shield Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 972/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: C. A

Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

erred in law and on facts of the appellant's case in confirming an adjustment of Rs.26,04,546/- under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act made by Learned Assessing Officer. 2. The Learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of the appellant's case

Smg International, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-30(5), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1500/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR

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

Finance Act, 2021.” 4. The additional grounds are heard and dismissed owing to clear provisions of Section 36(1)(va) and Section 143(1)(A)(iv). 5. The matter has attained finality by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it was observed that employers have to deposit

New Light Facility Management, Jlandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -4 (3), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 140/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Guntubolu Uma Sai Prasad, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 97/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

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

respective Acts – Rs. 4,99,01,746/-. 2. The adjustment made by the CPC is beyond the scope of the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) under which 19 the CPC proposed to make adjustment to the return of income. 3. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Guntubolu Uma Sai Prasad, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 227/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Guntubolu Uma Sai Prasad, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 226/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

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

Swastik Total Services Private Limited, Mumbai Subarban vs. CIT Appeal, Mumbai

In the result, all the grounds of the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 372/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Haria, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 36

expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return of income under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act, wherein the sum received from employees’ contribution to the provident fund or superannuation fund or any fund set up under ... while computing the total income while filing the return of income, the adjustment has been made by the Central Processing Centre under section 143 (1) (a) (iv) of the Act. Before making the adjustment the proviso of that section was looked into an assessee was given an opportunity and thereafter

Swastik Total Services Private Limited, Mumbai Subarban vs. CIT Appeal, Mumbai

In the result, all the grounds of the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 371/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Haria, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 36

Vaibhav Global Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 96/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT

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

loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under Sub-Section (1) of Section 139 can be made. 7. Section 143(1)(a)(iv) i. It is submitted that u/s 143(1)(a)(iv) only a claim/expenditure whose disallowance has been indicated in the audit report ... processing the return of income. 18 VAIBHAV GLOBAL LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR ii. Attention is drawn towards the fact in Section 143(1)(a)(iv), ‘increase in income’ has been added vide Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 1.4.2021. It is submitted that the present processing was done

Tab India Granites Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jaipur

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

ITA 136/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

employees’ contribution to PF/ESI fund is upheld. The grounds of appeal on this issue is dismissed. Additional Grounds of appeal:- As per section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act, the total income or loss shall be computed after making adjustment being disallowance of expenditure [or increase the income] indicated ... 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

Dhabriya Polywood Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 122/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani,CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl.CIT

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

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

Chandra Shekhar Tiwari, Flat No. B-9, D-224, Tanwar Residency, Tulsi Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 101/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B