← 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 Kvr Infra, Mumbai vs. ACIT 30 (2), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 323/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Ms. Padmavathy Sआअसं. 323/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2011-12) M/S Kvr Infra G-2, Room No.4, Shri Rani Sati Nagar Chsl, S.V. Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064. Pan: Aakfk3458Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit-30 (2), Mumbai. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None (Written Submission Dt. 19.07.2023) "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Prakash Kishinchandani, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/08/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 27.12.2022, For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised In Appeal Is Against Addition Of Rs. 50,24,875/- Made Under Section 69B Of The Income Tax Act, 1963 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’)

For Appellant: None (written submission dt. 19.07.2023)For Respondent: Sh. Prakash Kishinchandani, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69B

difference between the agreement price and the amount shown in the books of assessee. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 06.12.2016 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of assessee

Amol Capital Markets Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 783/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhamol Capital Markets Vs. Ito 4(1)(1) Private Limited Room No. 636, Aayakar A-106, Motalibai Wadia Bhavan, M.K. Road, Bldg, 22-D Sa Brelvi Mumbai - 400020 Street, Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8022N Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Rahul Hakani Respondent By : Manoj Kumar Sinha Date Of Hearing 03.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Solitary Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer Of Denying Set Off Of Profit Of F. & O. Transactions & Profit Of Non-Delivery Based Share Against Brought Forward Business Loss. 2. Fact In Brief Is That Return Of Income Declaring Income At Rs.Nil Was Filed On 25.09.2014. The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act Was Completed On 15.12.2016. The Assessing Officer Has Treated The Brought Forward Loss On The Trading Of F & O As Speculative Loss By Invoking Explanation To Sec. 73 Of The Act & Has Not Allowed The Same To Be Set

For Appellant: Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 143(3)Section 43Section 43(5)Section 73

P a g e | 1 Amol Capital Markets Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 4(1)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

M/S. Nasrani Petrol Pump, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 556/JODH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Nasrani Petrol Pump, Income Tax Officer, C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate, 106, Vs Ward-3(2), Jodhpur Akshay Deep Complex, 5Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Pan: Aaafn8277E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Sh. Rajendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Jodhpur Dated 12.03.2018 Emanating From The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Passed By Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Jodhpur For The A.Y. 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order U/S 263 Passed By Id Pr Cit-2. Jodhpur Is Bad In Law & Bad In Facts. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Id Pr. Cit-2, Jodhpur Erred In Not Recording Own Satisfaction In Respect Of Assessment Order Passed By The Ld Ao Is Erroneous M/S Nasrani Petrol Pump So As It Prejudicial The Interest Of Revenue As Per Provision Of Section 263 Of The Act. 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Pr. Cit,-2, Jodhpur Grossly Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed By The U/S 143(3) Without Any Finding As To How The Assessment Order Passed By The Ld Ao Is Erroneous So As It Prejudicial The Interest Of Revenue. 4. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Pr. Cit,-2, Jodhpur Erred In Recording Various Finding In The Order Are Contrary To The Material Available On Record. 5. That The Petitioner May Kindly Be Permitted To Raise Any Additional Or Alternative Grounds At Or Before The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 263

Assessee is directed against the order of ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Jodhpur dated 12.03.2018 emanating from the order under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Jodhpur for the A.Y. 2013-14. The Assessee has raised

J. P. Mills, Balotra vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur

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

ITA 317/JODH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 J.P. Mills, Acit, C/O Ashok Kumar Bansal, Vs Central Circle-1, Chartered Accountant, Vijay Jodhpur Shanti Plaza, Near 2Nd Railway Crossing, Balotra-344022 Pan: Aaefj2921K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Sh. Amit Kothari, Advocate Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Udaipur Dated 19.02.2018, Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 09.02.2016 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For A.Y. 2013-14. Findings & Analysis 2. We Have Heard Both The Parties & Perused The Records. Ld.Ar Had Filed Paper Book Containing Copy Of The Details Submitted Before Lower Authorities. 3. In This Case, The Ao Had Made Addition Of Rs. 88,353/-. The Ao Observed That In Case Of Certain Creditors, Assessee Had Not Filed Pan Numbers. The List Of Creditors Is As Under:- J.P. Mills S.No. Name Of The Creditor Amount 1. Manoj Textile Mills 11,803/- 2. S.M. Energy Taknik & 22,936/- Electronics 3. Daulal Rathi 47,336/- 4. Kothari Textile Agency 2,348/- 5. Ramesh Kumar Jhunjhunu 2,978/- Wala 6. Sarita Textile Agency 209/- 7. Shiv Shakti Agency 1,283/- Total 88,353/-

Section 143(3)

filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-2, Udaipur dated 19.02.2018, emanating from assessment order dated 09.02.2016 passed under section 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14. Findings & Analysis 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Ld.AR had filed paper