← 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)

Allan Sameul Chandekar, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Panvel

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2132/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2132/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Allan Sameul Chandekar बिधम/ Ito, Ward-1 Sai Arcade Chs Ltd, 503, Plot No.2 & 2A, Sector 17 Vs. Near Ghodke Hospital, Opp. Khanda Colony, Panvel-410206. New Panvel East, Navi Mumbai-410206. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afppc0597J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sanjiv G. Brahme/Shri Jayant Bhatt Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 13.04.2023 For The Ay. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Inter-Alia Has Raised The Legal Issue Of Non-Issuance Of Mandatory Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Before Framing The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv G. Brahme/Shri JayantFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM

Savita Oil Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-8(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1258/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1258/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Savita Oil Technologies बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-8(4) Ltd. Room No. 659, Aayakar Vs. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- New Marine Line, 400021. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs3513J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Yogesh Thar/Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. Ar) Shri Virabhadra Mahanjan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2023/ (20/10/2023) घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-50, Mumbai Dated 24.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The First Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is As Under: - “1(A) The Appellant Submits That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [(“Cit(A)”)] Erred In Not Allowing The Claim Towards Expenditure On Account Of Gratuity Representing Amount Actual Paid To An Approved Gratuity Fund Of Rs.83,69,981/- Representing Employer'S Contribution. (B) The Appellant Submits That Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Aforesaid Amount Of Rs.83,69,981/- Was Paid On Or Before The Due Date For Filing Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 To An Approved Gratuity Fund

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar/Chaitanya JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. AR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)Section 43BSection 80GSection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM

Saloni Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre-Delhi, Mumbai

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

ITA 1003/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1003/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Saloni Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ National E-Assessment 4Th Floor, 80-80B Patwa Centre-Delhi. Vs. Chawl, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcs5432B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Rutuja Pawar/Ms Sneha More Revenue By: Dr. Kishore Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 07.02.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Pointed Out That The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Has Passed Impugned Order Ex-Parte Qua Assessee. It Is Noted That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Trading & Manufacturing Jewelry Like Silver & Gold Items. The Appellant Filed Original Return Of Income U/S. 139(1) On 26.10.2018 Declaring Total Income As “Nil” For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee/Appellant Has Taken Loans From State Bank Of India Whereby The Account Amounting To Rs.129,87,70,130/- (Approximately) Was Classified As Declared As Non-Performing Asset (Npa Category) On 28.07.2015. Therefore, According To Ld. Ar, The Appellant Is A Npa

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja Pawar/Ms Sneha MoreFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM

Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 72/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited The Dcit 1402, 14Th Floor, Circle -4(1), First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaecs7234F Citigroup Global Markets (India) The Jcit (Osd) Private Limited 4(1)(1) 1402, 14Th Floor, Room No. 640, 6 Th Floor, First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan, Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Mr. Jasmin Amalsadwala, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 73

assessment order dated 26th March, 2014, passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Mumbai under Section 144C read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), by the assessee was partly allowed. Both the parties aggrieved with the assessment order and therefore ... respect of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax- 4(1), Mumbai (the AO) under section 143(3) read with section 144C(3) of Act, on the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in re-computing the arm's length price (ALP) of the international

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 45/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited The Dcit 1402, 14Th Floor, Circle -4(1), First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaecs7234F Citigroup Global Markets (India) The Jcit (Osd) Private Limited 4(1)(1) 1402, 14Th Floor, Room No. 640, 6 Th Floor, First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan, Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Mr. Jasmin Amalsadwala, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 73

assessment order dated 26th March, 2014, passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Mumbai under Section 144C read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), by the assessee was partly allowed. Both the parties aggrieved with the assessment order and therefore ... respect of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax- 4(1), Mumbai (the AO) under section 143(3) read with section 144C(3) of Act, on the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in re-computing the arm's length price (ALP) of the international