← 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)

M/S Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd, Dhanbad vs. ACIT Cir-1, Dhanbad

ITA 294/RAN/2017[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. 2 12 & 2012-13, respectively. The assessee has also filed cross objections arising out of

M/S Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd, Dhanbad vs. ACIT Cir-1, Dhanbad

ITA 293/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.291,293,294/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacb 7934 M & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.300 & 302/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M & Cross Objection Nos.09 & 11/Ran/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.300&302/Ran/2017) (Α.Υ :2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2026 : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per Bench : आदेश / Order These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Id.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.09.2017 & 19.09.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011- 12 & 2012-13, Respectively. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections Arising Out Of Appeals Of Revenue For A.Y.2009-2010 & 2011-2012. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeals Of The Revenue Filed For A.Y.2009- 2010 & 2011-2012. Ld. Ar, At The Outset, Filed A Chart Specifying The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue, Which Reads As Follows :- Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad Pan: Aaacb7934M Additions Disputed In Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राँची न्यायपीठ, राँची IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM

Krishna Punia, Jind vs. ITO, Jind

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 880/CHANDI/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) Which Has Been Opposed By Ld. Sr. Dr. 2. It Emerges That Ld. Ao Made Addition Of Cash Deposits For Rs.31.85 Lacs After Rejecting Assessee’S Submissions. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Admit The Appeal For Delay & Also Confirmed The Assessment On Merits Since The Assessee Did Not Comply With Hearing Notices. Aggrieved, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen Kumar Goyal (CA) (Hybrid Mode) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Mohanbhai Laljibhai Rami, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1981/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2012-13 The Income

Jamnaben Parshottamdas Patel, Banaskantha vs. The ITO, Ward(1), Palanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1801/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2011-12 Jamnaben The

Shah Mahendrakumar Mafatlal (HUF), Mithkhali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1689/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1688 & 1689/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16) बनाम/ Shah Mahendrakumar Income Tax Officer Mafatlal Huf Ward-1(1)(3), Vs. 27D, Maharashtra Society, Ahmedabad Anmol Mithkhali Owners Asso Mithkhali, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380006 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaihs8263H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Sulabh Padshah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. Dr 16/12/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 06/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

Shah Mahendrakumar Mafatlal (HUF), Mithkhali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1688/AHD/2025[ 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1688 & 1689/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16) बनाम/ Shah Mahendrakumar Income Tax Officer Mafatlal Huf Ward-1(1)(3), Vs. 27D, Maharashtra Society, Ahmedabad Anmol Mithkhali Owners Asso Mithkhali, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380006 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaihs8263H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Sulabh Padshah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. Dr 16/12/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 06/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

Pg Foils Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1581/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 801A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD

Pg Foils Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1580/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 801A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD

Gujarat Tea Processors & Packers Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1133/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 201Section 263Section 37Section 80G

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT erred in arbitrarily holding that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 2– Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, without demonstrating how the twin conditions are getting ... Assessing Officer had called for relevant details and the assessee had furnished the same, on the basis of which the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act was passed. The Ld. PCIT has not brought on record any specific error or demonstrated how the assessment order is erroneous

Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Sangli. vs. Shree Ganesh Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Ashta

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

ITA 2375/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2375/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-5, Sangli. Vs. Shree Ganesh Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Ashta, Tal. Walwa, Dist. Sangli, Sangli- 416301. Pan : Aaaas8248R Appellant Respondent C. O. No.49/Pun/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2375/Pun/2025) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Ganesh Nagari Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Sangli. Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Ashta, Tal. Walwa, Dist. Sangli, Sangli- 416301. Pan : Aaaas8248R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Assessee By : Shri Sarang Gudhate Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Shree Hatkeshwara Translines, Pune vs. Ass Commissioner, Income Tax Department Pune

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

ITA 2284/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2284/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vihit ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Hutatma Madhyavarti Sahakari Grahak Bhandar Maryadit Walwa, Sangli vs. ITO Ward - 5, Sangli

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

ITA 1834/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1834/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Al Falah Social Welfaresociety, Nanded vs. CIT(E), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1833/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1833/Pun/2025

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Shri Ajinkya Mahadev Kanchan, Pune vs. ITO Ward-43(3), Pune

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

ITA 1675/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri B. C. Malakar &For Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Limited, Pune vs. The DCIT Circle 7 Pune, Pune

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

ITA 1569/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1569/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Kiran SanmaneFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Favourite Cloth Merchants Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 391/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Savitha Gas Agencies, Poonamallee vs. Non Corp. Ward 8(2) Che, Chennai

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

ITA 3007/CHNY/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CITFor Respondent: 16.12.2025
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

Balakrishnan Ramanathan, Gobichettipalayam vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Erode

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

ITA 2738/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Raviassessment Years: 2012-13 Balakrishnan Ramanathan, Income Tax Officer, No.17, Canal Street, Ward-2(1), Gobichettipalayam, Erode. Tamil Nadu-638 452. [Pan: Aegpr4674H] Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr.N.Arjun Raj, Advocate Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2026 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Mfar Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 938/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sudhindra B.R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 194JSection 250

Total Disallowance considered for Order 49,32,553.00 3.4 Further, while passing the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act, the AO also reduced the refund of Rs.12,41,424/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 23/12/2022, the assessee ... Copy of these notices are enclosed as Annexure 3. g. In respect of the appeal filed against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) rws 144B for the very same year, the CIT(A) issued letters dated 13.6.2023 and 23.6.2023 stating the appeal filed is defective for the reason