← All Phrases

“Section 143(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(3)45,044 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(3) is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(3)

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 383 · 1998 · Supreme Court
5,834
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.
88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court
2,664
citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court
2,379
citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Judgments citing Section 143(3)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Bhilai, Durg vs. Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd., Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 241/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.241/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 1(1), V Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd, Bhilai, Durg S Bsp Premises, Slag Yard Road (Opp Sector 4 Nmoh), Bhilai Pan: Aadcb1675Q (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri. R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 25-10-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 30-10-2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri. R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)(x)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

High Court vide 315 ITR 84 (Bombay) (2009) 225 CTR 283 (Bombay) has held that "points not decided while passing assessment order under section 143(3) is not a case of change of opinion & assessment was reopened validly" and in the case of Chetan Sabharwal v/s ACIT ... India, reported in 315 ITR 84(Bombay), Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that “points not decided while passing assessment order under section 143(3) is not a 5 Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd. ITA 241/RPR/2023 case of change of opinion & assessment was reopened validly" and in the case

Sreeni Parameswaran, Ernakulam vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi

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

ITA 186/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassreeni Parameswaran Asst. Cit, 7/42 – B5, Mystic Bells Corporate Circle- 2(1) Villa No. 1, Eroor Desom Kochi Nadama Village Vs. Ernakulam 682308 [Pan: Bahps6202C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. K. Krishna, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per:Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Order Dated 20.01.2023 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac), Dismissing His Appeal Contesting His Assessment Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter "The Act") Dated 28.03.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. The Only Issue Arising In The Instant Appeal Is The Validity Or Otherwise In Law, In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Of The Addition By Way Of Deemed Dividend U/S. 2(22)(E) Of The Act For Rs. 62,44,215,Since Confirmed In The First Appeal.

For Appellant: Ms. K. Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 2(22)(e)

order dated 20.01.2023 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC), dismissing his appeal contesting his assessment under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") dated 28.03.2016 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 2. The only issue arising in the instant

M/S Al Kanz Money Exchange Pvt Ltd, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 902/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasal Kanz Money Exchange Pvt. Ltd The Income Tax Officer 551, Kalliarambil Memorial Bldg. Ward – 1(1), Kaipamangalam P.O. Vs. Thrissur Moonnupedika, Thrissur 680681 [Pan:Aahca8425H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.K. Jayan, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Part-Allowance Of It’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 20.12.2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-3, Kochi [Cit(A)] Vide His Order Dated 28.07.2022. 2. The Assessee-Company Is In The Business Of Money Exchange, I.E., Buying & Selling Foreign Exchange. As Explained To Us During Hearing, Persons Visiting Kerala From Abroad Are It’S Clients, Who Tender Foreign Currency Thereto, Which In Turn Is Exchanged By The Assessee With Authorised Dealers, Earning A Small Commission. It Has Necessary Approvals From The Regulatory Authorities. It Returned An Income Of Rs.(-)21,523For The Year, Which Was Initially Subject To A Limited Scrutiny In View Of Large Cash Withdrawals (From The Bank). The Scope Was Later Enhanced To Complete

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Jayan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271ASection 292C

Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the part-allowance of it’s appeal contesting it’s assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 20.12.2019 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals

Shri. Hirabai Haridas Dattani(Late) by L.H. Sathish Chandra Haridas Datani, Kannur vs. The ITO Ward-1, Kannur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 796/COCH/2022[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daslate Hirabai Haridas Dattani The Income Tax Officer (By L/H Satish Chandra Haridas Datani) Ward – 1, 100, Arman Cantonment Vs. Kannur Kannur [Pan:Aalph1136R] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Arun Raj, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 09.6.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)], Dismissing His Appeal Contesting His Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 28.10.2010 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee In His Capacity As The Legal Representative (Lr) Of His Late Mother, Smt. Hirabai Haridas Dattani. On Enquiry With Shri Raj, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee; The Valakat In His Favour Having Been Signed By The Assessee Alone, It Was Explained That The Assessee Has Been Pursuing The Matter From The Assessment Stage Onwards. His Only Brother, Shri Arun Dattani, Had Since Expired & He May Accordingly Be Taken As Representing The Estate Of His Late Mother For An On Behalf Of The Family, I.E., Including His Four Sisters; His Father Having Already Expired. The Hearing In The Matter Was Proceeded With On That Basis.

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

against the Order dated 09.6.2022 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [CIT(A)], dismissing his appeal contesting his assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 28.10.2010 for Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06. 2. The appeal has been filed